data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/da572/da5720142057089043574220d60b6fc6a855f34f" alt="Free Malaysia Today"
The company is seeking RM4.57 million in total damages from Badlisyah, who served from September last year until his suspension in November.
Mara listed several breaches that were committed by Badlisyah – specifically, hiring 25 people, purchasing 25 Microsoft Office Surface laptops, and appointing a public relations firm as well as a recruitment firm – all without the approval of the board of directors.
“As a result of his decision in hiring 25 individuals, the company had to pay RM2.73 million in salaries until they were terminated from work.
“Mara also had to come out with another RM736,000 as compensation after terminating these 25 individuals,” the company said in its filing, adding that 17 out of the 25 former employees have also filed actions before the Industrial Court over their sacking.
According to Mara, the appointment of the vendor to supply the laptops was not approved by the board.
“Thus, the purchase was not done in accordance with the company’s procurement policies.”
The same requirement in getting prior approval from the board before appointing the public relations firm and recruitment agency was also not complied with, the company said.
No breach of duty , says ex-CEO
The board of directors had in November 2020 suspended Badlisyah from his duty.
However, in his application to stay Mara’s lawsuit against him, Badlisyah defended himself against the allegations, saying that he did not breach his duty as CEO.
“The 25 individuals were hired under the existing Transformation Management Office (TMO) interim organisation structure. The structure was set up in June 2020 and approved by the board of directors without the presence of a CEO at that time.
“After the defendant (Badlisyah) started working with the company, the defendant adopted the organisation structure until he came up with a more enhanced group target operating model.”
On the purchase of laptops, Badlisyah said Mara’s allegation against him was baseless. He contended that the laptops’ purchase was approved by the company’s acting chief financial officer (CFO) Rizal Abdul Ghani.
“In any event, the approval process and required action to adhere to the process for the said procurement need not and did not involve the defendant.
“At all times, the defendant had also reminded the relevant procuring departments to comply with due process,” he said.
For the appointment of the public relations firm, Badlisyah said the firm offered Mara free services at the material time (September 2020).
“The defendant had acted in accordance with his limits of authority by approving the appointment of the public relation firm as they fulfilled the job scope and offered the cheapest fee.
“The defendant wanted to inform the board of directors on the firm’s appointment during a board meeting on Nov 30, 2020.
“However, due to the company’s decision in putting the defendant on “garden leave” on Nov 20, the defendant was unable to inform the directors,” he added.
Over the recruitment firm’s appointment, Badlisyah said he asked his human resource officer to engage with consultants to look for the head of the company’s human capital management.
“The said firm was subsequently approved by the defendant and appointed because its quotation was the cheapest among the three companies who also submitted their quotations,” he added.
Badlisyah filed the application to stay Mara’s lawsuit after he commenced an action against the company to challenge his sacking at the Industrial Court on March 8.
This comes after Mara informed Badlisyah that the company had terminated him as CEO. He said the facts before the Industrial Court are similar to this lawsuit.
However, Mara Corporation objected to the stay application, citing that the Industrial Court and civil court’s cases are not the same.
High Court judge Rozana Ali Yusoff fixed Sept 27 to hear Badlisyah’s stay application.
.
Stay current - Follow FMT on WhatsApp, Google news and Telegram