Daily Express Subscriber
Sign in to your account.

IN AUGUST of this year the Industrial Court awarded Anandraj Vadivellu (“the Claimant”–employee) RM 641,520.00, finding he had been unfairly dismissed. 

Paying closer attention will reveal this was no simple case. It was a story of staggering perseverance—a tale of a man who fought his employer through four different courts for seven years, losing three times before his final vindication. 

It’s like Sylvester Stallone’s “Rocky Balboa” being pummeled most of the rounds and coming out victorious at the final round. At the time of writing, its unclear whether the employer had made an appeal on the Industrial Court award as the earlier appeal by the claimant was against the decision of the Labour Court.

His trouble started with a promotion. On August 1, 2008, the Claimant” joined Iskandar Investment Berhad (“the Company”-employer) as Vice President, Marketing & Branding. 

After some years, in 2014, the Claimant was offered a significant promotion to Senior Vice President of Investor Relations (SVP), which he accepted. This career advancement came with a new monthly salary of RM19,440.00. 

However, within the promotion confirmation letter was a clause that would become the central point of contention:

“In line with the company policy on the employment terms, your employment with the company shall be converted from Permanent to Contract basis. Your contract of employment shall be for a period of 3 (three) years, from 1 November 2014 to 31 October 2017.” 

The Claimant took no issue with the contents of the promotion confirmation letter and worked three years without any objection accepting the higher pay and promotion. 

This silence, this apparent “acquiescence,” (acceptance) would become the cornerstone of the Company’s defense, as they would later argue that he had voluntarily and knowingly accepted the new fixed-term contract, which superseded his original permanent one.

As the three-year contract neared its end, On August 16, 2017, the Company only offered a mere six-month extension. 

The claimant was not happy with this short extension and started to formally engage his legal rights as an employee. His response was twofold and legally critical:

i. The Claimant wrote to the Company contending that this extension amounted to “compelling premature retirement” before he reached the minimum retirement age, which he argued was a breach of the Minimum Retirement Age Act 2012 (MRA 2012).

ii. When acknowledging the extension letter, the Claimant explicitly added the handwritten words: “I hereby acknowledge receipt of this letter under protest and without prejudice to my legal rights for premature retirement”.

His employment ended on April 30, 2018. This seven-year, four-month ordeal saw him fight and lose in three separate courts before finally winning in the fourth:

Round 1: The Labour Court (Lost)

The Claimant’s first attempt at recourse was at the Labour Court. His claim was based on the MRA 2012, arguing he had been “prematurely retired.” On April 10, 2019, the Labour Court dismissed his claim. It found “no probative evidence” that there was a retirement, let alone one based on age as required by the MRA 2012. There was no termination on the basis of premature retirement.

Round 2: The High Court (Lost)

Undeterred, the Claimant appealed the decision to the High Court. He argued that the Labour Court had erred and that his permanent contract was “unilaterally converted” in contravention of the MRA 2012. The High Court dismissed his appeal. It agreed with the lower court’s finding: The Claimant’s tenure ended by expiry of the fixed term contract and there was no termination on the ground of age.

Round 3: The Court of Appeal (Lost with a Lifeline)

The Claimant appealed again, this time to the Court of Appeal. He reiterated his core arguments but Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. The Court of Appeal while dismissing his MRA-based claim explicitly pointed him to a different legal remedy: a claim for unfair dismissal under the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (IRA 1967) to be heard by the Industrial Court.

His mistake had been procedural: he was in the wrong legal venue, arguing the wrong point (premature retirement) instead of the right one (unfair dismissal).

Round 4: The Industrial Court (Won)

The Industrial Court, on August 27, 2025, handed down its final Award: “the Claimant was found dismissed by the Company on 30.04.2018 without just cause and excuse” as it found the fixed term contract was not genuine.

The company claimed that the claimant was on a valid, “bona fide” fixed-term contract that ended naturally by “effluxion of time” (expiry of the contract). 

Company’s main argument was that the Claimant had acquiesced to the new terms by accepting the 2014 promotion with its higher salary and benefits and worked for three full years without a single objection. 

The Industrial Court agreed with the Company on this specific point. The Court found “the evidence are cogent and telling... that the promotion to SVP was accepted voluntarily” and that “the Claimant had acquiesced... without raising any recorded objections”. 

But the court went on to state that even though the Claimant acquiesced, “the matter does not rest here”. The real question, per the Federal Court case of Ahmad Zahari Mirza v AIMS Cyberjaya Sdn Bhd [2020] MLJU 595 is whether the contract was a “genuine fixed term contract” or a “continuing employment contract cloaked in fixed term tenures”.

This test required the Court to examine three factors:

i. The intention of the parties.

ii. The employer’s subsequent conduct.

iii. The nature of the employer’s business and the nature of the work performed.

The court found Company’s conduct of reassuring its employee became the irrefutable proof that they never intended his employment to end negating their “effluxion of time” defense. 

The Company’s claim of “downsizing” was disproven by its own data which showed that manpower increased after the Claimant left. 

The court also found was also contradiction in the company’s agreement when it argued that the job “had materially ceased and/or diminished” while also arguing that it was “exploring for a mutual separation package” and intended to conclude a further tenure by agreement.

Lessons for employees

Japanese proverb, nanakorobi yaoki which translates to “fall seven times, stand up eight” embodies the spirit of resilience, an unshakeable refusal to be defeated. 

The Claimant’s seven-year struggle involved losing in the Labour Court, High Court, and Court of Appeal over three years. 

His perseverance is a testament to his belief in his case. He only won when he got to the right court (the Industrial Court) with the right question (unfair dismissal under the IRA 1967.

A legal loss is not always the end; it may simply mean you took the wrong turn i.e.: wrong legal venue. 

It’s a reminder to employees to persevere in pursuing their rights. Secondly, acquiescence is not always fatal. The Claimant lost the “acquiescence” argument but won the case.

The Industrial Court, is empowered to look past the silence and ask a deeper question: whether the fixe term contract was genuine or a sham? 

Thirdly, employees should always be cautious in accepting new terms or “promotions”. Even though here the claimant won even after being found have acquiesced but If something is not right it advisable to make the objections clear.