Teo Chew Seng v Singapore Anti-Tuberculosis Association

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 18 February 1970
• Neutral Citation: [1970] SGHC 1
• Docket Number: Suit No 469 of 1966
• Date: 18 February 1970
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1970
• Plaintiff Counsel: M Karthigesu (Allen & Gledhill)
• Citation: [1970] SGHC 1
• Defendant Counsel: J Grimberg (Drew & Napier)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Dismissal on grounds of misconduct,Plea of justification,Action for damages for wrongful dismissal,Employment Law,Unfair dismissal,Whether dismissal was justified

The plaintiff in this action, Dr Teo Chew Seng, was engaged by SATA, the defendants, in May 1959 as a chest physician. By a letter dated 28 February 1966 addressed to the defendants` medical director, Dr Sen-Gupta, the plaintiff gave the defendants one month`s notice of the termination of his employment, the said notice expiring on 30 March 1966 and which said notice was accepted by the defendants. Prior to the expiry of the said notice the plaintiff published and circulated a document dated 2 March addressed `To My Friends and Colleagues in SATA Clinic` in which the plaintiff said he `would like to clear up some misunderstanding and rumours occasioned by my resignation, and to heal any hurt feelings there may be as a result of the rumours`. Exception was taken to this circular by the medical director and by SATA Council. By letter dated 10 March SATA Council informed the plaintiff that unless the council received an unconditional written apology from him within 24 hours he would be dismissed. By letter dated 12 March the plaintiff, through his solicitors, informed SATA Council that he did not intend to make any apology. The plaintiff was dismissed on 16 March. The plaintiff now sues the defendants for damages for wrongful dismissal. The ground of dismissal which was alleged against the plaintiff in the pleadings was misconduct.

The relationship between the plaintiff and the medical director was cordial until December 1965. That was the month when the medical director met the plaintiff`s father-in-law and told the latter that although the plaintiff`s work was generally satisfactory there had been complaints concerning the plaintiff`s lack of interest in his patients. A few days later, on 3 December the plaintiff confronted the medical director to clarify the remarks that the latter had made to his father-in-law and to inquire if the medical director was satisfied with his work.

Following this confrontation, according to the plaintiff, the medical director`s attitude towards him completely changed. The plaintiff said: `Outwardly he was his normal amiable self, affable, smiling and pleasant. But the moment I was alone with him, his attitude completely changed, he became aggressive, sarcastic and fault-finding.`

The plaintiff in his evidence dwelt on a number of incidents which arose in the clinic after his confrontation with the medical director. He complained to the medical director about the almoner referring his cases direct to the deputy medical director and prescribing dangerous drugs and signing for them on the patients` treatment cards. He described the squabble he had with the personnel officer over the parking of the latter`s motor car and the manner in which the medical director dealt with the matter. He told the court `that when he applied for one week`s leave the medical director`s reply was a blunt `No` unless he could find a locum .

The incident with which we are really concerned and which led up to the resignation of the plaintiff and the issue of the circular by the plaintiff is this. From the time he joined SATA right up to August 1965 the plaintiff had one permanent nurse attached to him. That nurse left him and due to a shortage of nurses it was not possible to assign another permanent nurse to the plaintiff. The plaintiff then came to an arrangement with the supervisor, whose main function was the supervision and deployment of nurses, whereby the plaintiff selected three nurses from the pool and each nurse would serve him for a minimum period of one month and a maximum of two and these nurses would do that in rotation. This arrangement started in September 1965. On 24 February 1966 the supervisor informed the plaintiff that none of these three nurses would be available to him from March and that a nurse X would be assigned to him. The plaintiff said that he refused to accede to this arrangement and that his reason for refusing to have nurse X was one of principle. He said: `The principle was, I had already selected my three nurses and only anyone of these three should be allotted to me. If the supervisor had said one of these three nurses was to be assigned to me I would not have objected.` Another reason he gave was that nurse X was not experienced to be a physician`s nurse. The supervisor reported to the medical director who sent for the plaintiff.

There is a conflict of evidence as to what took place in the medical director`s room. The evidence of the plaintiff was this:

The director asked me `What is this I heard you don`t want this so-and-so to be your nurse?` He then told me that he had already decided to allot this nurse X not only for the month of March but permanently from March onwards and he said: `I will see to it that you have her from now onwards, no more rotation but if you still object then you put down your objections in writing, list your objections specifically so that I can present your report to the union and dispense with her services.` He then said that he was very dissatisfied with this nurse and he was scared to sack her because if he did so the union would sit on his head. I then replied: `You are afraid of the union sitting on your head yet I should not be afraid of the union sitting on my head`, and I added: `Do you know what is going to happen to me if the nurse gets the sack on the strength of my report, the union is going to make life so miserable for me through its members in SATA that eventually I have to resign; in that case it is better for me to resign gracefully now.` He then said: `You have no choice in this matter; either you give that report or else you have the nurse as your permanent nurse from now onwards.` Just then the telephone rang and he was engaged over the telephone for two minutes. After putting down the receiver he asked: `Well, what have you decided?` I said I still had a choice, I would hand in my resignation at the end of the month. I then rose and left the room but as a parting shot he said: `Think it over.`

The evidence of the medical director was this:

I asked the plaintiff as to why he had taken strong objection to the assignment of nurse X as his personal nurse. He replied that the nurse in question was inefficient. I pointed out to him that nurse X had already been in the service of SATA for about seven years during which period she had worked both in the injection room and also as a relief nurse to physicians and during this period there had been no adverse reports on her ability as a nurse. I further pointed out to him that the duties of a physician`s nurse were extremely simple and that even a nurse without experience or prior knowledge of the type of functions she was supposed to undertake as a physician`s nurse could be carried out even by a most inexperienced person. I then explained to him the supervisor`s reason for assigning nurse X to him was because of

...