Arokiasamy v. Singapore Airlines: Termination of Employment under Employment Act

In Arokiasamy Joseph Clement Louis v Singapore Airlines Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Arokiasamy against the District Court's dismissal of his claim for wrongful termination. Arokiasamy was terminated by Singapore Airlines for being absent from work for more than two days without a reasonable excuse, as per Section 13 of the Employment Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that Singapore Airlines was entitled to terminate his employment under the Act, and that the requirements of natural justice and the collective agreement did not apply in this case.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court upheld the dismissal of Arokiasamy by Singapore Airlines, finding the company rightfully terminated his employment due to unexcused absence.

1.7 Decision Date

8 January 2004

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Arokiasamy Joseph Clement Louis	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	B Ganesh, A Jeyapalan
Singapore Airlines Ltd	Respondent	Corporation	Appeal Dismissed	Won	Lawrence Teh, Sean La Brooy

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Woo Bih Li	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
B Ganesh	Ganesha and Partners
A Jeyapalan	Ganesha and Partners
Lawrence Teh	Rodyk and Davidson
Sean La Brooy	Rodyk and Davidson

4. Facts

Arokiasamy was an employee of Singapore Airlines.
Arokiasamy was seconded to the Singapore Airlines Staff Union between 1989 and 1995.
Arokiasamy was charged with certain offences on 18 February 1997 and remanded in prison.
Arokiasamy did not report for work since 21 February 1997.
Singapore Airlines terminated Arokiasamy's employment on 5 March 1997 due to his absence.
Arokiasamy was acquitted of the charges in June 1997.
Arokiasamy did not inform Singapore Airlines of his incarceration.

5. Formal Citations

Arokiasamy Joseph Clement Louis v Singapore Airlines Ltd, DCA 17/2003, [2004] SGHC 2

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1989-01-01	Arokiasamy seconded to the Singapore Airlines Staff Union.
1995-01-01	Arokiasamy's secondment to the Singapore Airlines Staff Union ends.
1996-01-01	Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau commenced investigations regarding complaints against Arokiasamy.
1997-02-18	Arokiasamy charged with certain offences at the Subordinate Courts.
1997-02-21	Arokiasamy did not report to work.
1997-03-05	Singapore Airlines terminated Arokiasamy's employment.
1997-06-01	Arokiasamy acquitted of the charges brought against him.
1997-11-01	Arokiasamy commenced DC Suit No 4929 of 1997 against Singapore Airlines for wrongful termination.
1998-05-01	Arokiasamy asked SIASU to file an application on his behalf to the Industrial Arbitration Court.
2000-01-01	High Court dismissed Arokiasamy's suit against SIASU.
2000-09-01	Arokiasamy filed an amended statement of claim.
2001-07-01	Summary judgment was obtained against Arokiasamy on part of SIA’s counterclaim.
2001-11-01	High Court varied the judgment sum in November 2001.
2003-03-01	District Court hearing began.
2003-05-01	District Court hearing ended.
2004-01-09	High Court dismissed the appeal.

7. Legal Issues

Wrongful Termination
- Outcome: The court held that the termination was not wrongful as the employee was absent without leave and did not inform the employer of a reasonable excuse.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Termination without cause
  - Breach of contract of employment
Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court held that the principles of natural justice did not apply in this case.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration that the dismissal was null and void
Damages, including continuing salary up to the time of adjudication
Interest
Costs

9. Cause of Actions

Wrongful Termination

10. Practice Areas

Employment Litigation

11. Industries

Airline

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Arokiasamy Joseph v Singapore Airlines Staff Union	High Court	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR 473	Singapore	Cited to show the history of the case, regarding SIASU's refusal to file an application on Arokiasamy's behalf to the Industrial Arbitration Court.
Arokiasamy Joseph v Singapore Airlines Staff Union	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] 2 SLR 303	Singapore	Cited to show the history of the case, regarding the dismissal of Arokiasamy's appeal by the Court of Appeal.
Lian Yit Engineering Works Sdn Bhd v Loh Ah Fon	High Court	Yes	[1974] 2 MLJ 41	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that an employer may terminate an employee's service without notice for continuous absence from work without reasonable excuse.
Poh Loy Earthworks Sdn Bhd v Mohd Nasurdin Taib	Industrial Court	Yes	[1997] 3 ILR 608	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that a company ought to give a show cause letter to the claimant alleging of what the company had in mind and if not satisfied then the company should hold a domestic inquiry on him to determine the truth on a balance of probability.
Said Dharmalingam bin Abdullah v Malayan Breweries (Malaya) Sdn Bhd	Supreme court	Yes	[1997] 1 CLJ 646	Malaysia	Cited regarding due inquiry under s 14 of the Malaysian Employment Act 1955.
Hongkong Bank Malaysia Bhd v Joseph Stephen	Industrial Court	Yes	[1998] 3 ILR 1001	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that an employee who absents himself in the circumstances set out in s 15(2) is deemed to be in breach of contract.
Dharmaraja @ Abd Malik a/l Abd Wahab v Asian Ceramic Sdn Bhd	High Court	Yes	[2000] 2 MLJ 282	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that a continuous absence of more than two days does not mean that the contract of employment comes to an end automatically nor does it entitle the company to dismiss an employee as of right.
CK Lee & Associates v Goh Shaw Yuh	Industrial Court	Yes	[2002] 3 ILR 645	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that employers have reciprocal duties to take reasonable steps themselves to investigate and enquire of the background facts causing employee’s absences.
Ridge v Baldwin	House of Lords	Yes	[1964] AC 40	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that the rules of natural justice do not apply in cases of employment contracts.
Vasudevan Pillai v The City Council of Singapore	Privy Council	Yes	[1968] 2 MLJ 16	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the relationship of master and servant gives rise to no application of the principle of audi alteram partem on dismissal.
Lim Tow Peng v Singapore Bus Services	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1975–1977] SLR 180	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the rules of natural justice do not apply in cases of employment contracts.
North Staffordshire Railway Company v Edge	House of Lords	Yes	[1920] AC 254	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that an appellate court should not consider arguments not raised in the original pleadings or before the trial judge.
Feoso (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Faith Maritime Co Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR 556	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an appellate court should not consider arguments not raised in the original pleadings or before the trial judge.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Employment Act (Cap 91, 1996 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Industrial Relations Act (Cap 136, 1985 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Termination of employment
Absence without leave
Employment Act
Natural justice
Collective agreement
Personnel Procedures Manual
Wrongful dismissal
Remand
Reasonable excuse

15.2 Keywords

Employment
Termination
Singapore Airlines
Employment Act
Wrongful Dismissal

16. Subjects

Employment Law
Contract Law

17. Areas of Law

Employment Law
Contract Law