Lorry driver loses appeal over RM19,604 termination benefits

SHAH ALAM: The High Court has dismissed a lorry driver's appeal against the Director-General of Manpower's (DGM) decision rejecting his claim for RM19,604 in salary in lieu of notice and termination benefits.

Judge Narkunavathy Sundareson dismissed the appeal after finding no reason to interfere with the DGM's decision dated Aug 8, 2025, which held that R. A. Murugan, 55, had breached his employment contract by failing to report for work for more than two consecutive working days.

In dismissing the claim, the DGM found that he had failed to turn up for work after May 13, 2024.

It referred to Section 15 of the Employment Act 1955, which states that an employee is deemed to have broken his contract if he is continuously absent from work for more than two consecutive working days without prior leave, unless he has a reasonable excuse and informs or attempts to inform his employer at the earliest opportunity.

The appellant had worked as a lorry driver with a transportation company since June 1, 2014, earning a daily wage of RM57.70, in addition to payments based on the number of deliveries he made.

According to Narkunavathy's grounds of judgment, the appellant was assigned on May 11, 2024, to deliver palm oil from a refinery in Teluk Panglima Garang to a company in Negri Sembilan.

He was detained by his company's director for allegedly siphoning oil from the tank.

When the appellant returned to work on May 13, 2024, he claimed he was told that the company no longer wanted to see him.

However, the court noted that he made no effort to verify his employment status with the company throughout 2024.

He turned up at the company's office on May 27, 2024, asking for his name to be removed from a management system so he could work for another transportation company.

He returned on June 10, 2024, to collect a toll claim, which was subsequently paid on June 18.

He began working for another transportation company on June 25, 2024.

The court also noted that the appellant only wrote to the company regarding his employment status on Jan 21, 2025, about six months after his absence began.

Narkunavathy said it was trite that when an employee is continuously absent from work for more than two consecutive working days without prior leave, the employee is deemed to have breached his employment contract.

"The absence constitutes a breach unless the employee has a reasonable justification for his absence and has informed or attempted to inform his employer at the earliest possible opportunity," she said.

The court found that the appellant had not complained about his alleged termination when he sought to have his name removed from the system and had already found employment with another transportation company.

"In fact, he did not pursue a claim at the DGM until March the following year and there was no explanation for his inertia.

"In light of this factual matrix, this court is hard pressed to find fault with the DGM's decision."

The judge said the DGM had properly considered the relevant facts and arrived at a decision consistent with the law.

"This court finds no appealable error of law or fact that warrants appellate intervention. The DGM's evaluation of the evidence was comprehensive and fully supported by the facts presented during the proceedings before him," she said.