Forced Resignation Case – Extent of Damages Awarded (August 2025)
Case: THEVENDRAN A/L S SIVANANTHAM v FUJI XEROX ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LTD. – Industrial Court Case No. 15(11)/4-699/20
Brief Facts
- Employment Background:
- The Claimant, Thevendran A/L S Sivanantham, served Fuji Xerox Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. for about 27 years, holding senior roles including General Manager, Operations Management, and later General Manager, Sales Operations 1 (GMSO1).
- He was tasked with turning around the underperforming National Major Accounts (NMA) division in April 2019.
- Performance Improvement Plan (PIP):
- In August 2019, just five months into his GMSO1 role, the Company placed him on a PIP citing poor performance.
- The PIP lasted only five weeks instead of the three months stated in company guidelines.
- The Court found the PIP goals to be unreasonable, misaligned with his job scope, and later increased without justification (RM10 million sales target vs. RM9.3 million KPI).
- Resignation Under Duress:
- On 30 September 2019, at a final PIP review meeting, the Claimant was allegedly given two options: resign and keep benefits, or be dismissed immediately and lose them.
- Feeling he had no choice, he resigned the next day but later sought to withdraw his resignation.
- The Company rejected the withdrawal, stating it had already accepted the resignation.
Legal Dispute
- Whether the Claimant’s resignation amounted to a dismissal under Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967.
- If there was a dismissal, whether it was with just cause or excuse.
Court’s Findings
- On Forced Resignation:
- The Court held that the resignation was not voluntary but induced by the Company’s conduct.
- The “resign or be dismissed” ultimatum left the Claimant with no real choice.
- The Company’s later offer to withdraw the resignation was not genuine and appeared to be damage control.
- On Just Cause or Excuse:
- The PIP was unjustly imposed shortly after the Claimant assumed a challenging new role.
- The goals were unreasonable, inconsistent with his KPIs, and included last-minute changes designed to ensure failure.
- The abbreviated PIP duration and misaligned objectives showed it was not a genuine performance improvement process.
- Therefore, the dismissal (via forced resignation) was without just cause or excuse.
Decision & Award (and Breakdown of Damages)
Total Award: RM492,844.20 (less statutory deductions) to be paid within 30 days via his solicitors.
Reinstatement: Not possible as the Claimant had surpassed the retirement age of 60.
Compensation – Back Wages:
24 months × RM26,497 = RM635,928.00
Less 10% for post-dismissal earnings: RM572,335.20
Less 3 months’ salary in lieu of notice already paid: RM79,491.00
Consult Us For More Information!
🌐 Call us: 017-6965 966 (Call/Whatsapp) / 013-4400 128 (Whatsapp)
📩 Email Us: nick@jykolaw.com
Or fill in the contact form CLICK HERE
Disclaimer: The above proposition is subject to actual facts and circumstances and shall never be referred as the actual law without seeking legal advice. Consult us for more information!