Ex-worker fails in bid to invalidate Unisel's retirement benefit revocation

The Shah Alam High Court has dismissed a former Universiti Selangor (Unisel) worker’s bid to invalidate the university’s revocation of the retirement benefit payments scheme.

Lawyer Yusfarizal Yusoff, who appeared for the ex-worker, Mohammad Sulaiman, confirmed the verdict made by judge Choong Yeow Choy in a closed proceeding this morning.

He added that the court has also ordered the plaintiff to pay RM10,000 to Unisel and Unisel Sdn Bhd, who are the first and second defendants, respectively.

“The judge has decided to dismiss the originating summons filed by the plaintiff.

“Based on the brief reasons given orally, the dismissal is essentially because the court is of the view that the scheme provided (under Unisel’s 2006 Circular) is a mere gift without consideration.

“(The judge is also of the view that) there is no obligation for the retirement benefit to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff,” he told Malaysiakini when contacted.

He said that the plaintiff, who retired in 2020 after serving for more than 14 years, had filed the originating summons on Dec 10 last year, where he was seeking the court’s declaration that Unisel’s action in revoking Article 3.2 of the 2006 circular is invalid.

Article 3.2 of the circular provides for the payment of retirement benefits, which Mohammad claimed is included in his employment contract.

No compliance with principles

Yusfarizal said his client had filed the suit because he was of the view that Unisel had revoked the article without the university’s executive committee’s approval, which was required under Article 1.1.3 of the university’s Second Handbook.

He also said that Mohammad had felt that the university did not comply with the principles applicable in exercising contractual discretion under the law, in filing the suit.

“The plaintiff claimed that provisions under Article 3.2 of the circular and Article 1.1.3 of the Second Handbook are part of the university’s employment contract terms.

“However, the defendants had then argued that the retirement benefits provided under the circular are purely gratuitous gifts and there is no obligation for them to make such payments to the plaintiffs.”

Mohammad was one of seven former workers who, in 2023, intended to sue the university’s management for allegedly refusing to continue the retirement benefit payment scheme for compulsory retirees and staff who are still working.

He claimed that the university’s management, at that time, did not provide them with sufficient space and opportunity to raise this issue, which, he claimed, was the promised privilege to all staff who had served since the university’s establishment until the end of 2011.

LETTER | Workers deserve retirement benefits beyond EPF

YOURSAY | GLCs should not be running up huge losses

YOURSAY | Do migrant workers deserve the same benefits as locals?

LETTER | If you don't retire by 60, you're addicted to power and control

Raise retirement age gradually, says Bukit Gasing rep

COMMENT | Calm debate needed for retirement age, not viral outrage