员工必须在解雇后的60天内, 举报老板 [2023]

被公司解雇后正在内部上诉，可以等公司答复后才去投诉吗？60天到底从哪一天开始算？

不可以等。员工认为自己遭到无理解雇，就算已经向公司提出内部上诉，也必须守住60天的法定期限

1. 根据 《1967年工业关系法令》第20(1)及20(1A)条，员工认为雇主在没有正当理由或原因下解雇自己，可以向马来西亚工业关系局提出要求恢复原职的书面申诉，而申诉必须在解雇后的60天内提出。内部上诉、要求公司重新考虑、等人力资源部回复、等纪律调查报告、等老板解释，全部不会自动把60天重新计算。如果雇主给予终止通知，员工可以在通知期内提出申诉，最迟则是通知期届满后的60天。这里也必须更新我2023年的原文：60天期限的准确法律依据是 第20(1A)条，不是第20(3)条。

最安全的做法只有一个：先在60天内保护自己的权利，公司的内部上诉同时继续。不要先赌公司会批准上诉

2. 现时工业关系局明确允许员工通过 IRIS系统 提出第20条申诉，也可向有关工业关系局处理。申诉后，工业关系局先安排和解；如工业关系总监认为已经没有和解的希望，现行 第20(3)条 使用的是“shall refer”，即由工业关系总监把案件转介工业法庭。《2020年工业关系（修正）法令》Act A1615 自2021年1月1日起改变了旧制度，今天的新案件已不是以前由人力资源部长决定要不要转介。因此， “部长拒绝转介”是 Samiah 案当年的真实程序，却不能直接套用在2026年的新案件。
3. Samiah Yasmin bt Abdul Kadir lwn Menteri Sumber Manusia Malaysia dan satu lagi [2023] MLJU 480：员工等内部上诉结果，最后输在60天。 员工是一名大学教授，2019年12月4日收到终止服务决定，12月20日提出内部上诉，并于2020年2月7日得知上诉失败。她之后在3月9日向雪兰莪工业关系局提出第20条申诉；判词另一处记录有关申诉于3月10日正式提交，但无论采用哪一天，都已经超过60天。她解释自己一直在等待大学处理内部上诉。旧制度下，人力资源部长拒绝把案件转介工业法庭，她于是申请司法复核，希望推翻部长决定。吉隆坡高庭驳回申请，并裁定她应该最迟在2020年2月4日前采取行动。她因为等待内部上诉而失去了实体案件进入工业法庭审理的机会。

内部上诉为什么救不了60天？关键不是公司什么时候驳回上诉，而是原来的解雇什么时候生效

4. Samiah 案采用 Abu Habidah Yaacob v Pengarah Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan Johor Bahru [1990] 2 CLJ 388 以及 K Subaram & Ors v The Jendarata-Bernam Provident Fund & Ors [2003] 2 MLRA 137; [2003] 4 CLJ 725 的原则：即时解雇即产生效力；合约内的内部上诉制度仍然可以继续。如果上诉成功，员工可以恢复职位，并处理上诉期间的待遇；如果上诉失败并维持原来决定，解雇的生效日期回到原来的解雇日期，而不是公司后来驳回上诉的日期。Samiah 自己在申诉表格也填写2019年12月4日为终止日期，这进一步打掉了她后来主张“应该从2020年2月7日开始计算”的说法。

其他败诉案例更加直接说明：60天不是提醒日期，而是危险的法定截止线

5. 在 Fung Keong Rubber Manufacturing (M) Sdn Bhd v Lee Eng Kiat & Ors [1981] 1 MLJ 238，员工因涉嫌偷窃被即时解雇，之后等待刑事案件结果，直至约两年七个月后获判无罪才追讨无理解雇。联邦法院裁定当时法令规定的一个月期限必须严格遵守，迟一天也足以产生管辖权问题；后来法令虽然把期限改为60天，其严格性质没有消失。V Sinnathamboo v Minister for Labour and Manpower [1981] 1 MLJ 251 同样涉及迟交申诉，员工于1975年11月19日被解雇，却到1976年1月13日才提出申诉。高庭裁定法定期限具有强制性，迟交对案件属致命问题，并拒绝司法复核救济。今天的 第20(1A)条 更直接规定，超过60天，工业关系总监不得受理申诉。

员工也有胜诉的案例，但前提是先把门打开，不要自己错过60天把门关掉

6. 在 Ace Holdings Bhd v Norahayu Rahmad & Anor [2023] 5 MLRA 96，工业法庭原本因为员工后来只要求金钱赔偿而没有在陈述书要求恢复原职，便认为自己失去管辖权。上诉庭裁定这种做法错误，第20条案件不能单凭员工最终没有要求恢复原职，就在未审理实体争议前被踢出去。另一宗经典案例 Wong Chee Hong v Cathay Organisation (M) Sdn Bhd [1988] 1 MLJ 92 则确认建设性解雇也属于第20条的保护范围，员工因雇主严重违反雇佣关系而把合约视为终止，最终获得工业法庭救济。这些案例说明第20条可以给予员工实际救济，但最基本的入场券仍然是依法及时提出申诉。

真正处理案件时，不要只会数60天，还要第一天就把证据锁好。

7. 保留终止信、收到终止信的日期和方式、雇佣合约、员工手册、内部上诉条款、警告信、解释信、纪律调查文件、电邮、WhatsApp、会议记录、薪资单、表现评估以及所有能够证明解雇理由和时间线的文件。如果双方争议真正的解雇日期，现行 第29(da)条 明文赋予工业法庭权力，在第20(3)条案件中判断正确的解雇日期。到了工业法庭，第27(1)(d)条 允许当事人在取得主席许可后由律师代表；但在工业关系局的和解阶段，律师不能作为正式代表出席，因此更应该在会议前先获得专业法律意见，把时间线、申诉立场、证据和和解底线准备好。若员工最终胜诉，工业法庭作出裁决时须依据 第30(6A)条及第二附表 考虑法定因素，其中欠薪赔偿原则上最高计算24个月，试用期员工最高12个月，并须考虑解雇后的收入。

法律总结：被解雇后，不要把公司的内部上诉当成法律时钟的暂停键

8. 最稳妥的策略是把原来解雇生效日当作60天起点，在期限内先保护第20条权利，内部上诉继续同步进行；若上诉成功，再处理后续即可。真正昂贵的从来不是律师咨询费，而是为了省下咨询费而做错决定。法律问题最危险的不是没有答案，而是乱回复、乱签文件、乱接受和解，或者一直拖到法定期限过去。付费咨询买的不是几句话，而是 Wilson Kuek 律师超过20年实际办案的判断力，先把时限、证据、胜算、赔偿和谈判方向看清楚。
9. 第一时间付费咨询Wilson Kuek律师及其专业团队；如需正式处理案件，请尽早委任律师楼。Whatsapp Wilson Kuek律师: 019-2286668 (https://wa.me/60192286668) / 律师楼联系号码: 016-3229368 (https://wa.me/60163229368) 。
10. 延伸阅读： 如果你正在处理解雇或工业法庭案件，可继续阅读com 的相关文章，包括：

• 《调部门是建设性解雇？雇主胜》，了解调职何时不足以构成建设性解雇；
• 《公司重组、换汇报对象、削权不削薪，员工胜》，了解建设性解雇成功案例；
• 《建设性解雇：员工接受了雇主违反雇佣协议的行为，雇主胜》，了解员工拖延及接受违约行为的风险；
• 《雇主解雇偷钱的员工，员工在民事法庭告错赔偿》，了解选错法律途径的后果；以及
• 《破产的员工被无理解雇，能通过工业法庭索偿吗？》，进一步了解第20条无理解雇救济。

Dismissed From Work in Malaysia: Can You Wait for an Internal Appeal Before Filing an Unfair Dismissal Claim? How Is the 60-Day Deadline Calculated?

No. An employee should not wait for the employer’s internal appeal process to finish before protecting the statutory 60-day deadline

1. Under sections 20(1) and 20(1A) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 [Act 177], a workman who considers that he has been dismissed without just cause or excuse may make written representations to the Director General of Industrial Relations for reinstatement. The representation must be filed within 60 days of the dismissal. An internal appeal, request for reconsideration, pending Human Resources review, disciplinary appeal, request for reasons, or negotiations with management does not automatically restart the statutory clock. Where the employee is dismissed with notice, the representation may be filed during the notice period and must in any event be filed no later than 60 days after the notice expires. One correction is necessary to the earlier 2023 article: the statutory 60-day deadline is found in section 20(1A), not section 20(3).

The practical rule is simple: protect the section 20 right first and continue the company’s internal appeal in parallel. Do not gamble the statutory deadline on the employer allowing the appeal

2. JPPM presently states that a section 20 representation may be submitted online through its IRIS system, after which the Department will attempt conciliation. Under the present section 20(3), if the Director General is satisfied that there is no likelihood of settlement, the Director General “shall” refer the representation to the Industrial Court for an award. This is an important change introduced by the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020 [Act A1615], which took effect for the relevant amendments on 1 January 2021. The previous filtering mechanism under which the Minister decided whether a dismissal representation should be referred is therefore not the procedure for a new 2026 claim. The Minister’s refusal to refer the claim in the Samiah case was correct as a historical fact because that dispute arose under the former statutory regime.

Samiah Yasmin bt Abdul Kadir lwn Menteri Sumber Manusia Malaysia dan satu lagi [2023] MLJU 480 is a direct warning against waiting for an internal appeal

3. The employee was a university professor whose employment was terminated on 4 December 2019. She lodged an internal appeal on 20 December 2019 and learnt on 7 February 2020 that the appeal had been rejected. She then approached the Selangor Department of Industrial Relations on 9 March 2020; another passage of the judgment records the formal filing as 10 March 2020. Either date was well outside 60 days. She explained that she had waited for the university to decide her internal appeal. Under the legislation then applicable, the Minister declined to refer her representation to the Industrial Court. She commenced judicial review proceedings seeking to quash that decision. The Kuala Lumpur High Court dismissed her application and held that she ought to have filed the representation by 4 February 2020. Waiting for the internal appeal ultimately cost her the opportunity to have the substantive unfair dismissal dispute heard in the Industrial Court.

Why does an internal appeal not save the employee? The crucial question is when the original dismissal legally took effect, not when management later rejected the appeal

4. In Samiah, the High Court relied on Abu Habidah Yaacob v Pengarah Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan Johor Bahru [1990] 2 CLJ 388 and K Subaram & Ors v The Jendarata-Bernam Provident Fund & Ors [2003] 2 MLRA 137; [2003] 4 CLJ 725. The principle is that an immediate dismissal takes effect immediately although the contractual internal appeal mechanism may continue to operate. If the appeal succeeds, the employee may be reinstated and the consequences of the intervening period can be dealt with accordingly. If the appeal fails and the original dismissal is affirmed, the effective dismissal date remains the original date. It does not become the later date on which the appeal is rejected or communicated. In Samiah, the employee had herself stated 4 December 2019 as her termination date in the representation form, which further undermined her later attempt to use 7 February 2020 as the starting date.

The older authorities demonstrate why the statutory deadline must be treated as a hard deadline, not merely an administrative reminde

5. In Fung Keong Rubber Manufacturing (M) Sdn Bhd v Lee Eng Kiat & Ors [1981] 1 MLJ 238; [1980] 1 MLRA 194, the employees were summarily dismissed following allegations of theft. Instead of immediately pursuing their industrial remedy, they waited until they were acquitted in the criminal proceedings approximately two years and seven months later. The Federal Court held that the then statutory one-month filing period was strict and that lateness went to jurisdiction; even a claim filed one day late could not be entertained. The statutory period has since been enlarged to 60 days, but the mandatory nature of the deadline remains. Likewise, in V Sinnathamboo v Minister for Labour and Manpower [1981] 1 MLJ 251, the employee was dismissed on 19 November 1975 but did not make his representation until 13 January 1976. The High Court held that the statutory time requirement was mandatory, that non-compliance was fatal to the claim, and refused certiorari. The present wording of section 20(1A) is itself emphatic: the Director General shall not entertain a representation unless it is filed within the statutory period.

Employees do win section 20 cases, but they must first preserve their right to enter the Industrial Court process

6. In Ace Holdings Bhd v Norahayu Rahmad & Anor [2023] 5 MLRA 96, the Industrial Court had declined jurisdiction because the claimant’s Statement of Case eventually sought monetary compensation rather than reinstatement. The Court of Appeal held that the Industrial Court could not dispose of the unfair dismissal claim without hearing it merely because reinstatement was no longer prayed for. This is important because section 20(1) is framed as a representation for reinstatement, yet the employee does not automatically lose the Industrial Court’s jurisdiction merely because the eventual remedy sought is monetary. The classic Wong Chee Hong v Cathay Organisation (M) Sdn Bhd [1988] 1 MLJ 92 also established that constructive dismissal falls within section 20: an employee who treats the employment relationship as terminated because of the employer’s fundamental breach may obtain industrial law relief. These cases demonstrate the breadth and practical value of section 20, but none provides an excuse for allowing the statutory filing deadline to expire.

A properly handled dismissal case is not only about counting days; evidence and strategy must be secured immediately

7. Keep the termination letter, proof of when and how it was received, employment contract, employee handbook, internal appeal procedure, warning letters, show-cause letters and replies, domestic inquiry documents, emails, WhatsApp messages, meeting records, salary records, performance appraisals and documents showing the employer’s stated reason for dismissal. Prepare a precise chronology identifying the date of notice, effective termination date, internal appeal date, appeal decision and section 20 filing date. If the true date of dismissal itself becomes disputed, section 29(da) expressly empowers the Industrial Court, in a section 20(3) reference, to determine the correct dismissal date even where the date stated in the Director General’s reference is disputed or incorrect. At the Industrial Court stage, section 27(1)(d) permits representation by an advocate with the permission of the President or Chairman. By contrast, an advocate and solicitor cannot formally represent the employee or employer during JPPM’s section 20 conciliation proceedings. That makes early legal preparation more, not less, important: a lawyer can analyse the claim, organise the evidence, prepare the legal position and establish a realistic settlement strategy before the employee attends conciliation.

The conclusion is straightforward: never treat an internal appeal as a pause button for Malaysia’s unfair dismissal deadline

8. The prudent strategy is to calculate the 60 days from the original effective dismissal date and file the section 20 representation within time while the internal appeal proceeds separately. If the internal appeal later succeeds, the consequences can then be addressed. If it fails, the employee has at least preserved the statutory claim. What is truly expensive is never the legal consultation fee, but every wrong decision made merely to save that fee. The dangerous part of an employment dispute is replying carelessly, signing documents without understanding them, accepting a settlement prematurely, or waiting until a limitation period has expired. A paid consultation buys more than a few sentences: it gives you Wilson Kuek‘s more than 20 years of practical legal experience to assess the deadline, evidence, merits, remedy and negotiation position before the wrong step is taken.
9. Consult Wilson Kuek and his team first to understand your position before taking action; if formal legal representation is required, appoint us early. WhatsApp Wilson Kuek 019-2286668 (https://wa.me/60192286668) / Legal Firm 016-3229368 (https://wa.me/60163229368).
10. Related reading on: Readers dealing with dismissal and Industrial Court disputes may also read:

• Transfer of Department as Constructive Dismissal? Employer Wins for an example where a transfer did not amount to constructive dismissal;
• Company Restructuring, Change of Reporting Line and Reduction of Authority: Employee Wins for a successful constructive dismissal claim;
• Constructive Dismissal: Employee Accepted the Employer’s Breach, Employer Wins for the danger of delay and affirmation;
• Employee Dismissed for Theft but Sues in the Wrong Forum for the consequences of choosing the wrong legal remedy; and
• Can a Bankrupt Employee Claim for Unfair Dismissal in the Industrial Court? for further discussion of section 20 remedies.

 资料来源: Samiah Yasmin bt Abdul Kadir lwn Menteri Sumber Manusia Malaysia dan satu lagi [2023] MLJU 480

==============================

*如果您需要聘请律师处理法律事务/付费法律咨询，请联系我们。

*欢迎Whatsapp Wilson Kuek律师: 019-2286668 (https://wa.me/60192286668) / 律师楼联系号码: 016-3229368 (https://wa.me/60163229368)。If you wish to engage our services, kindly Whatsapp Wilson Kuek at: 019-2286668 (https://wa.me/60192286668) / our Legal Firm’s contact at: 016-3229368 (https://wa.me/60163229368).

*我们的律师楼拥有超过 20 年的执业经验。我们有处理民事纠纷(打官司/法庭诉讼)、商业纠纷、劳工纠纷(工业法庭）、追讨债务、遗产分配、立遗嘱、离婚、抚养权、赡养费、产业分配、领养小孩、拟商业合约、拟雇佣协议、拟买卖合约、银行贷款、法律咨询、法律顾问、等法律事务。全马的案件，我们皆有处理。We handle various legal matters including civil litigation, commercial disputes, labour disputes (Industrial Court), debt recovery, probate & letter of administration, will, divorce, children custody, maintenance/alimony, adoption, distribution of matrimonial assets, drafting commercial agreements, drafting employment contracts, drafting sale and purchase agreements, process loan documentations, providing legal consultations, offering legal advisory services and handling miscellaneous legal works.

*我们的律师楼网站拥有超过3,000则法律文章，免费提供大众阅读+参考。欢迎填写您的资料，订阅我们的法律文章: www.kuekong.com。Our law firm’s website features over 3,000 legal articles, available for free to the public for reading and reference. Feel free to fill in your details to subscribe to our legal articles: www.kuekong.com.

*Wilson Kuek律师是《法律与你同行 Law & Justice》面子书群组的创办人。《法律与你同行》是马来西亚最大的法律平台。我们的平台每天为无数的平民百姓免费解除各类的法律困扰。Wilson Kuek is the founder of the Facebook group “Law & Justice.” “Law & Justice” is Malaysia’s largest legal platform, providing free legal assistance to countless individuals daily.

*加入我们的Telegram: https://t.me/LawAndJusticeGroup

*加入 我们的“法律与你同行”FB 群组: http://bit.ly/fblawnjustice

*加入我们的“法律与你同行的FB Page: https://bit.ly/lawandjusticefbpage

*订阅我们的YouTube (频道 1): https://bit.ly/48IFP0g

*订阅我们的YouTube (频道 2): http://bit.ly/lawnjustice

*Kuek, Ong & Associates. Advocates & Solicitors. No.86-1, Jalan Mahogani 1, Bandar Botanic, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan.

#郭汪律师事务所 #郭汪律师楼 #郭、汪律师事务所 #郭、汪律师楼 #巴生律师事务所 #巴生律师楼 #吧生律师事务所 #吧生律师楼 #KL律师 #吉隆坡律师 #郭伟廷律师 #律师郭伟廷 #大状

#民事诉讼律师 #民事案律师 #商业诉讼律师

#专打官司的律师 #专打官司律师 #专打民事诉讼案 #专打民事纠纷案 #专打商业纠纷案

#处理工业法庭案件的律师 #处理工业法庭案件律师 #工业法庭律师 #劳工案件律师 #劳工法庭案件律师 #劳工法庭律师

#专打离婚案的律师 #专打离婚案律师 #处理离婚的律师 #处理离婚案的律师 #离婚律师

#买卖合约律师 #买卖合同律师 #商业合约 #商业合同

#有经验的律师 #好律师 #专业的律师 #值得信赖的律师 #信得过的律师 #靠得住的律师 #靠谱的律师 #利害的律师 #有信誉的律师 #有声望的律师 #有名望的律师 #有名声的律师 #出名的律师 #有名的律师 #有实力的律师 #强悍的律师 #有效率的律师 #能干的律师 #马来西亚华人律师 #懂华文的律师 #懂华语的律师

#Kuek, Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong Associates #Kuek_Ong_Associates #Kuek-Ong-Associates #KuekOngAssociates #lawyer Wilson Kuek #WilsonKuek #Kuek Wee Teng #KuekWeeTeng

#Klang Legal Firm #Klang Valley Legal Firm # Selangor Legal Firm #KL Legal Firm #Klang Law Firm #Klang Valley Law Firm # Selangor Law Firm #KL Law Firm

#Klang Lawyer #Klang Valley Lawyer #Selangor Lawyer #KL Lawyer #Kuala Lumpur Lawyer #Chinese Lawyer #Malaysia Lawyer #Civil Litigation Lawyer #Divorce Lawyer

#Specialised #Professional Lawyer #Experienced Lawyer #Trustworthy Lawyer #Reliable Lawyer #Reputable Lawyer #Renowned Lawyer #Famous Lawyer #Skilled Lawyer #Credible Lawyer #Esteemed Lawyer #Notable Lawyer #Well-known Lawyer #Capable Lawyer #Effective Lawyer #Efficient Lawyer #Best Lawyer

 1. 马来西亚被解雇后60天内必须做什么？内部上诉会延长期限吗？ / Malaysia Unfair Dismissal: Must You File Within 60 Days and Does an Internal Appeal Extend Time?；2. 被公司解雇后等内部上诉，错过60天怎么办？ / Dismissed From Work: What Happens If You Miss the 60-Day Deadline While Waiting for an Appeal?；3. 无理解雇60天期限，从解雇日还是上诉驳回日开始算？ / Unfair Dismissal 60-Day Deadline: From Dismissal Date or Internal Appeal Decision?；4. 公司解雇后可以先内部上诉再去工业关系局吗？ / Can You Complete an Internal Appeal Before Filing an Industrial Relations Claim?；5. 马来西亚员工被解雇：60天投诉期限完整法律指南 / Malaysia Employee Dismissal: Complete Guide to the 60-Day Filing Deadline；6. 内部上诉失败才投诉无理解雇？小心60天已经过了 / Waiting for an Internal Appeal Before Claiming Unfair Dismissal? Your 60 Days May Already Be Gone；7. 第20条无理解雇申诉：员工千万不要错过这60天 / Section 20 Unfair Dismissal Claim: Do Not Miss the 60-Day Deadline；8. 被老板炒鱿鱼后多久必须投诉？马来西亚工业法庭60天规则 / How Long Do You Have After Being Fired? Malaysia’s Industrial Court 60-Day Rule；9. 解雇信收到后怎么办？内部上诉不会重新计算60天 / What to Do After Receiving a Termination Letter: An Internal Appeal Does Not Restart 60 Days；10. Samiah Yasmin案：等公司内部上诉为何让员工输掉无理解雇案？ / Samiah Yasmin Case: How Waiting for an Internal Appeal Cost an Employee Her Unfair Dismissal Claim

1. 被解雇？60天倒数开始！ / Fired? The 60-Day Countdown Starts!；2. 内部上诉不会暂停60天 / Internal Appeal Does Not Stop the 60 Days；3. 等上诉结果？你的60天正在走 / Waiting for the Appeal? Your 60 Days Are Running；4. 无理解雇：别错过60天 / Unfair Dismissal: Don’t Miss 60 Days；5. 解雇后60天，迟了就危险 / 60 Days After Dismissal: Late Means Trouble；6. 公司上诉未完，60天照样算 / Appeal Pending, 60 Days Still Running；7. 解雇信一到，法律时钟启动 / Termination Letter Arrives, Legal Clock Starts；8. 60天期限不是开玩笑 / The 60-Day Deadline Is Real；9. 等公司回复，等到失去索偿权？ / Wait for the Company and Lose Your Claim?；10. 被炒后第一件事：守住60天 / Fired? Protect Your 60 Days First

1. 马来西亚无理解雇60天 / Malaysia unfair dismissal 60 days；2. 被解雇60天投诉期限 / dismissal 60-day filing deadline Malaysia；3. 内部上诉不延长60天 / internal appeal does not extend 60 days；4. 解雇后内部上诉期限 / dismissal internal appeal deadline Malaysia；5. 工业关系法令第20(1A)条 / Industrial Relations Act section 20(1A)；6. 第20条无理解雇申诉 / section 20 unfair dismissal representation；7. 马来西亚工业关系局解雇投诉 / JPPM dismissal representation；8. IRIS无理解雇投诉 / IRIS unfair dismissal claim；9. 工业法庭60天期限 / Industrial Court 60-day deadline；10. 解雇日期怎样计算 / calculation of dismissal date Malaysia；11. 终止信60天期限 / termination letter 60-day deadline；12. 内部上诉被驳回无理解雇 / internal appeal rejected unfair dismissal；13. Samiah Yasmin [2023] MLJU 480；14. Abu Habidah Yaacob [1990] 2 CLJ 388；15. Fung Keong Rubber [1981] 1 MLJ 238；16. K Subaram Jendarata-Bernam [2003] 4 CLJ 725；17. V Sinnathamboo [1981] 1 MLJ 251；18. Ace Holdings Norahayu [2023] 5 MLRA 96；19. 被老板解雇怎样索赔 / how to claim after being fired Malaysia；20. 马来西亚解雇律师工业法庭 / Malaysia unfair dismissal lawyer Industrial Court.

#员工part time #员工副业 #60 days time period #60 days time limit #60天限期 #60天内申请 #60天内投诉 #六十天内