In a quiet courtroom verdict, Malaysia's Industrial Court has affirmed that a former marketing chief at Encorp Must was rightly dismissed, placing a single career within a larger reckoning over who answers for money owed and trust broken. The failures at the heart of it, concerning tenancy paperwork and unpaid rents at two properties totalling RM2.52 million, were measured against his own admissions and internal audit findings. The ruling also settles a subtler question: that giving notice of resignation does not sever the bond of employment, leaving employers free to act during the interval.
Industrial Court Upholds Dismissal of Encorp Must Manager Over RM2.52 Million in Unpaid Rent
Resignation notice does not end employment immediately
Mark
Why does this ruling matter beyond one manager losing his job?
Mimi
Because of the resignation point. Hairizal had given three months' notice, and the company refused it and disciplined him anyway. The court said notice doesn't end employment immediately, so the company kept its disciplinary rights until the notice ran out.
Mark
So resigning doesn't shield an employee from discipline.
Mimi
Not during the notice period, according to this ruling. The contract and both sides' obligations continued.
Luke
Worth saying that this is one Industrial Court chairman's award on these facts. It's reported as a clear statement of principle, but I wouldn't stretch it into a universal rule from this article alone.
Mark
What did the evidence consist of?
Mimi
Internal audit findings and Hairizal's own admissions, according to the chairman. The company's case was that tenants lacked valid agreements and that rent went unrecovered, totalling RM2,522,037.
Luke
Notice that the RM2.52 million is the company's figure as accepted by the court. The report doesn't say how much was later recovered, or over what period the arrears built up.
Mark
And the MACC investigation he mentioned?
Mimi
He cited it, along with legal advice, as a reason for not answering the company's queries. The court found nothing legally stopping him from responding.
Luke
Be careful there. The report tells us a MACC investigation was ongoing, but not what it concerns or whether anyone has been charged. That's simply unknown.
Der Puls
- A former assistant general manager's dismissal over RM2.52 million in unpaid rentals has been upheld by the Industrial Court.
- His resignation notice, tendered with three months to run, failed to shield him as the company pressed ahead with discipline.
- Silence on the allegations, justified by legal advice and a live MACC probe, was found not to be a legal barrier to answering.
- The 28-page award closes this labour claim, yet the separate MACC investigation stays unresolved and could still reopen the matter.
In a quiet courtroom verdict, Malaysia's Industrial Court has affirmed that a former marketing chief at Encorp Must was rightly dismissed, placing a single career within a larger reckoning over who answers for money owed and trust broken. The failures at the heart of it, concerning tenancy paperwork and unpaid rents at two properties totalling RM2.52 million, were measured against his own admissions and internal audit findings. The ruling also settles a subtler question: that giving notice of resignation does not sever the bond of employment, leaving employers free to act during the interval. Whether the shadow of an anti-corruption inquiry will one day reshape this story remains an open chapter.
Hairizal Hosman lost his post as assistant general manager and head of marketing, sales and leasing at Encorp Must Sdn Bhd on Nov 15, 2024. The company accused him of neglecting his duties and breaching his fiduciary obligations, specifically over tenancy agreements and rent recovery at Encorp Strand Mall and Warna Avenue. The arrears came to RM2,522,037.
He had already tendered a resignation with three months' notice, but the company rejected it and moved to discipline him. Industrial Court chairman Andersen Ong rejected his argument that the resignation should have ended the matter. Ong held that the employment relationship continued until the notice period expired, so the company retained its power to act.
Ong also found that Hairizal's refusal to answer substantively, citing legal advice and an MACC investigation, was not supported by any legal restriction. Weighing his own admissions and the audit evidence, the judge concluded the misconduct was grave enough to justify dismissal and dismissed his claim. The MACC inquiry, whose scope the ruling does not describe, remains the unsettled thread.
Hairizal Hosman lost his job on Nov 15, 2024. He had been an assistant general manager and head of marketing, sales and leasing at Encorp Must Sdn Bhd, and the company dismissed him over allegations of dereliction of duty and breach of fiduciary duties. This week the Industrial Court ruled that the dismissal stood.
The allegations centred on tenants at two properties, Encorp Strand Mall and Warna Avenue. The company said Hairizal had not made sure every tenant had a valid tenancy agreement. It also said he had neglected to take proper steps to recover outstanding rentals, which together came to RM2,522,037.
Industrial Court chairman Andersen Ong dismissed Hairizal's claim in a 28-page award. He said the evidence, including Hairizal's own admissions and internal audit findings, showed that he had failed to discharge his responsibilities. Ong found that those failures exposed the company to contractual risks and significant financial loss, with the unpaid rentals standing at RM2.52 million.
The case turned on a procedural point as well as the facts. Before he was dismissed, Hairizal had tendered his resignation with three months' notice. The company rejected it and went ahead with disciplinary action. His side's position, as the ruling frames it, was that the resignation should have stood in the way.
Ong disagreed. "The tendering of a resignation by giving notice does not, in itself, bring the employment relationship to an immediate end," he said. In his reasoning, the employment contract, and the rights and obligations each side owed the other, continued until the notice period expired. That left the company free to discipline him in the meantime.
The court also addressed Hairizal's decision not to give a substantive answer to the company's queries. He had pointed to legal advice and an ongoing Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission investigation as his reasons. Ong found no legal restriction that prevented him from responding.
On the question of penalty, Ong said: "In view of the nature, seriousness and consequences of those failures, the court is satisfied that the misconduct established against him was sufficiently grave to warrant dismissal." He concluded that Hairizal had been dismissed with just cause or excuse, and dismissed the claim against the company.
Muis Majid and Mastura Mustafa appeared for Hairizal. Edward Andrew Saw and Kee Shu Min represented Encorp Must. The MACC investigation Hairizal cited remains a factor to watch, since the ruling does not describe its scope or outcome.
Bemerkenswerte Zitate
The tendering of a resignation by giving notice does not, in itself, bring the employment relationship to an immediate end.— Andersen Ong, Industrial Court chairman
Möchten Sie die ganze Geschichte?
Das Original lesen bei Free Malaysia Today ↗
Business