A former imam of Masjid Darul Ehsan in Subang Jaya has filed a lawsuit against the mosque's administration and the Selangor Religious Department (Jais) for wrongful dismissal five years ago.

The services of Redzuan Hashim, 28, were terminated on Sept 15, 2000, after he allegedly violated a directive prohibiting him from conducting religious classes, reading Friday sermons, and to head prayer sessions.

The termination letter was signed by mosque chairperson Omar Mahmud. The case is scheduled for mention at the Kuala Lumpur Industrial Court on June 3.

In his statement of claim, Redzuan demanded that he be reinstated as the imam and be paid compensation for the salary and benefits lost during the period he was sacked.

His lawyer Muhammad Burok said that there was no just cause for the termination, and the plaintiff was not given the opportunity to defend himself.

He said Omar had claimed that Redzuan's services were terminated under the instruction of then Jais director Mansor Ramli.

Redzuan, from Kuala Terengganu, was appointed imam of the mosque on May15, 1998. His appointment letter was issued by Muhammad Burok himself who was then the secretary of the Darul Ehsan Mosque committee.

Subsequently, Muhammad said his client received a letter from Jais, dated June 4, 1998, confirming his appointment.

Mosque under Jais

Masjid Darul Ehsan was initially a public mosque but in 2003, its administration came under Jais' jurisdiction following the enforcement of the Selangor Islamic Law (Amendment) 2003.

Since then, the lawyer said the appointment of the mosque committee has been decided by Jais and no longer by the residents, as was the previous practice.

Muhammad said the issue at hand is whether Redzuan's dismissal was legal and who had the authority to terminate his services the mosque chairperson or the religious department.

According to the current imam , Hairol Azmi, the decision to sack Redzuan was reached unanimously by the mosque committee and was endorsed by Jais.

He also revealed that the suit was served on them on April 25 and the reply would be filed before May 25.

When contacted, a Jais officer declined to comment on the issue.