Malaysia – Employment And Industrial Relations Update: Court Upholds Imposition Of Unpaid Leave Under Covid-19 Entry Policy.

Amiruddin bin Ahmad & 13 Ors v Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No. WA-22NCvC-285-05/2022) 

Introduction 

The Kuala Lumpur High Court had, on 30 January 2026, dismissed the claims of 14 Plaintiffs against their employer, Petroliam Nasional Berhad (commonly known as PETRONAS) (“Defendant”), arising from the Defendant’s action of placing the Plaintiffs on unpaid leave for a period of almost four months due to the Plaintiffs’ unvaccinated status. 

Facts of the case 

The Defendant in this case had introduced a policy during the Movement Control Order in October 2021, requiring all employees, contractors, and visitors who enter into the Defendant’s premises to be vaccinated against COVID-19, unless they have a medical exemption (“Entry Requirement”).  This policy was in light of the worrying situation of the COVID-19 pandemic at that material time, the Defendant’s obligations under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 (“OSHA 1994”), and the continuous and strong encouragement of the Ministry of Health (“MOH”) for everyone in Malaysia to be vaccinated against COVID-19. 

The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendant in different capacities within the PETRONAS group, however, refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and failed to obtain any medical exemption.  The Plaintiffs maintained that it was their right to determine what medicines to place in their bodies and had decided to refuse the Covid-19 vaccine, despite not having any underlying conditions which would prevent them from taking the vaccine.  The Defendant therefore proceeded with the imposition of unpaid leave on the Plaintiffs, after explaining the importance of taking the Covid-19 vaccine and giving the Plaintiffs several opportunities to re-consider their position. 

When the COVID-19 pandemic situation took a turn for the better sometime in April 2022, the Defendant subsequently removed the Entry Requirement, allowed the Plaintiffs to enter the Defendant’s premises to carry out their duties, and ceased the imposition of the unpaid leave. 

However, the Plaintiffs subsequently commenced a civil case before the High Court against the Defendant seeking for, amongst others, the following: 

1. That the Defendant pays all outstanding salary and benefits which was caused by the imposition of the unpaid leave; 

2. General damages; 

3. RM7,000,000 as aggravated damages and/or exemplary damages; 

4. A declaration that the Defendant’s orders which prohibited the Plaintiffs’ entry into the Defendant’s premises and the (purportedly) discriminatory actions by the Defendant towards the Plaintiffs are unconstitutional and/or invalid; and 

5. That the Defendant issues an alternative instruction for the Plaintiffs and any other unvaccinated employees in the performance of their tasks and responsibilities. 

Before the High Court, the Defendant submitted, amongst others, that: 

1. The Defendant’s obligation under OSHA 1994 required the Defendant to take sufficient steps relating to the safety and health of the workplace. 

2. The unprecedented and unique circumstances necessitated the Defendant to take drastic action and implement the Entry Requirement. 

3. The benefits of COVID-19 vaccines outweigh the risks. 

4. The COVID-19 vaccine is permissible in Islam, and there are no religious restrictions against taking the vaccine. 

5. It was the Plaintiffs who had refused and failed to be vaccinated and to obtain the necessary medical exemptions, despite being given ample opportunities to do so. 

6. The Plaintiffs as employees are obliged to comply with the policies, rules, regulations, and instructions of their employer, the Defendant. 

7. The Defendant is entitled to impose measures which it deems necessary in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (including to dismiss the Plaintiffs from employment or place them on unpaid leave), and such measures taken could not amount to a breach of the terms and conditions of employment. 

8. The Federal Constitution cannot be invoked by one private party against another. 

Decision of the High Court 

After over 14 days of trial involving 18 witnesses (including an expert witness from the MOH called by the Defendant), the High Court dismissed all of the Plaintiffs’ claim and held that: 

1. Although the choice of vaccination is an individual choice and the right to employment is provided under Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution (which grants the fundamental right to life and personal liberty), the instructions of the employer are also important. 

2. There must be a balance between individual rights and the safety and health of the public at large, and if one chooses to exercise his right to not be vaccinated, they have to bear the consequences. 

3. If they choose to exercise their right to not be vaccinated, the Plaintiffs have a choice whether to remain working with the employer who had imposed such Entry Requirements. 

4. The Defendant had called a medical doctor from MOH as an expert witness to assist the Court in this case. 

5. Although the COVID-19 vaccine is only encouraged by the Malaysian Government and not made mandatory, non-vaccination involves puts others at risk and can lead to major consequences to others. 

6. The Court agreed with the Defendant’s submission that the Defendant as the employer has the general duty under OSHA 1994 to ensure that the safety, health and welfare of employees are safeguarded as reasonably possible. 

7. The burden of proof lies on the Plaintiffs to prove that they need not interact or associate with other people physically in the course of their employment, and they had failed to prove the same — effectively, they did not prove that that they would not cause harm others by remaining unvaccinated. 

8. Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination does not amount to a contravention of fundamental human rights and is consistent with the constitutional principles in order to promote herd immunity. 

This decision therefore reinforces the rights of employers to impose measures which it deems necessary in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, even in a civil claim, which is in line with: 

1. Numerous decisions of the Industrial Court which had upheld the dismissal from employment due to failure to be vaccinated as dismissal for just cause or excuse. 

2. The decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal which had dismissed judicial review applications challenging the imposition of government policies or circulars which had made COVID-19 vaccination mandatory for public servants. 

Conclusion 

This case involved the High Court having to balance the obligations of an employer to provide a safe working and the employer’s right to introduce policies mandating vaccination against the civil liberties of employees who refuse to be vaccinated since the COVID-19 vaccination was not mandatory under the law. 

The Defendant was represented by Vijayan Venugopal and Adam Thye Yong Wei. 

Contact us for further information regarding Employment & Industrial Relations matters.