Low Pu Tong v Housing & Development Board

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: T S Sinnathuray J
• Judgment Date: 30 October 1990
• Neutral Citation: [1990] SGHC 80
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 1189 of
• Date: 30 October 1990
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1990
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lauren Ong Ting Lan (Boey Ng & Wan)
• Citation: [1990] SGHC 80
• Defendant Counsel: Abu Bakar bin Bawah
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Application of HDB Rules and Regulations,Whether employer entitled to terminate employee's service with notice,Wrongful dismissal,Whether employee entitled to reinstatement,Employment Law,Whether superseded by subsequent emplacement of employee on permanent establishment,Letter of appointment

Cur Adv Vult

In this originating summons the plaintiff claims against the defendants, the Housing and Development Board (HDB), for a declaration that the dismissal of the plain tiff by the defendants is wrongful. The two other matters in the originating summons are for further or other relief and costs.

Miss Ong, who appears for the plaintiff, referred to the undisputed facts in this case. They are these. The plaintiff was an employee of the HDB. He was appointed a works apprentice under a letter of appointment dated 24 January 1972. It is specifica lly provided in para 3(e) of the letter that the plaintiff will not leave the service of the HDB without giving one month` s notice in writing and if he does so, he agrees to pay as liquidated damages a sum equal to one month` s salary; and, para (f) states that during the continuance of his appointment the plaintiff` s services may be dispensed with by the HDB without any reason being given.

Some eight years later, by a letter dated 13 October 1980, the plaintiff was placed on the permanent establishment of the HDB. That letter states as follows:

I am pleased to inform you that management has agreed to emplace you on the permanent establishment at your existing salary and salary scale with effect from 1 October 1980.

You will retain your present incremental date.

Your appointment on the permanent establishment is subject to all the Board` s Rules and Regulations, conditions of service and any directives issued from time to time.

Another seven years went by. On 11 July 1987, the plaintiff was suspended from duties on half-month` s pay. He had been charged in the subordinate courts on certain charges of corruption. Subsequently, on 29 April 1989, the prosecution decided not to proceed with the charges and the court granted the plaintiff a discharge amounting to an acquittal on all the charges that were before the court.

On 2 May 1989 the plaintiff wrote to HDB and requested that he be reinstated in the service. On 6 June, he received a reply from the HDB signed by Mr Goh Sin Tok asking the plaintiff to see him. On 7 June 1989, the plaintiff saw Mr Goh Sin Tok, who i s the senior as sistant secretary of the HDB. According to the plaintiff in his affidavit, he was advised by Mr Goh during the meeting to voluntarily resign from his position or face a termination letter. The plaintiff said that he was told that because there were two thi ck volumes of documents against him concerning corruption matters, he could not go back to work with the HDB. The plaintiff was startled by this stand taken by the HDB because he had already been acquitted of all the charges against him and he accordingly refused to resign from his position.

On 20 June 1989, the HDB terminated his services and gave him one month` s pay in lieu of notice. The plaintiff returned the money to HDB. He then commenced these proceedings on 15 December 1989.

On these facts which are not in dispute, for the facts are accepted by Mr Abu Bakar for the HDB, Miss Ong, for the plaintiff, contends that the purported termination is null and void because the plaintiff was a permanent officer on the permanent esta blishment with the HDB. She further contends that there is nothing in the Rules that the services of a permanent officer of HDB can be terminated without cause by a simple notice of termination.

Here, I must refer to the relevant Rules and Regulations relating to officers employed by the HDB, in particular those that deal with conduct and discipline. Rules 97 to 117 of the Housing and Development Board Rules and Regulations govern the genera l conduct and discipline of HDB officers. Rule 118 provides as follows:

An employee who is guilty of a breach of any of Rules 97- 117 may be punished either with dismissal (with or without notice as in the circumstances may seem just) or with any lesser punishment which may seem just.

Rule 119 then sets out the procedure to be followed for the dismissal of officers.

The submission of Miss Ong is that there being no specific rule provided in the Rules to terminate a permanent officer by giving notice, the plaintiff not having been put through discipl...