KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 30 — The Shah Alam High Court here has awarded damages of nearly RM4 million to security firm Uppal Aimed Guard Security Sdn Bhd after finding that its service termination by Nestle Products Sdn Bhd and Nestle Manufacturing (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd was not justified.

Justice Shoba Rajah Dorai Rajah yesterday ruled that the defendants, Nestle, had unlawfully terminated the security services agreement and ordered damages in lieu of reinstatement.

The court awarded RM3,891,744.42 in damages, RM30,000 in exemplary damages and RM50,000 in costs to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was represented by lawyers Datuk Gobinath Mohanna and P. Taneswaran, while the Nestle companies were represented by Dawn Wong.

In its statement of claim, the plaintiff contended that it entered into a security services agreement with the defendants on July 25, 2022, to provide security guards at five Nestle premises, and under the agreement, the plaintiff began deploying guards from Aug 1, 2022, including at Nestle’s premises at 1 Powerhouse, Bandar Utama, Petaling Jaya. 

The plaintiff claimed that on Aug 16, 2022, Nestle’s security manager asked the company to replace three experienced Nepali guards with newly arrived foreign workers who had never worked in Malaysia. 

The request, the plaintiff alleged, was made on the basis that the new guards would be easier for Nestle to train and control, but it fell outside the terms of the security services agreement.

According to the security firm, it complied with the instruction and supplied five new guards, from whom Nestle selected three, despite being informed that two of the guards were still awaiting approval of their work permits.

The plaintiff maintained that the guards were lawfully in Malaysia and in the process of obtaining valid permits.

Nestle later claimed the guards did not have valid work permits, suspended the company’s services at the Bandar Utama site, and barred the guards from entering the premises. Although the plaintiff offered to replace the guards, Nestle rejected the proposal. 

On Nov 7, 2022, Nestle terminated the plaintiff’s services at the Bandar Utama site with immediate effect and ended services at the remaining four premises with three months’ notice, citing a breach of contract.

The plaintiff alleged the termination was unlawful, carried out in bad faith, and premised on incorrect allegations that the guards were illegal immigrants.

It contended that all three guards later obtained valid work permits with retrospective effect, and that Nestle had been aware of the immigration process throughout.

The company further claimed that Nestle failed to comply with the agreement’s dispute resolution and cure provisions, which required notice and an opportunity to remedy any alleged breach before termination.

Meanwhile, the defendants claimed that the termination was valid, allegedly since the said workers did not have a valid Visit Pass (Temporary Employment). — Bernama