Patrick Chan commenced work with Wuhan Logistics Berhad as a forwarding clerk in 2013. Since then, he has been promoted until he becomes a Senior Executive in the Export Department receiving a salary of RM 4180. On 27th January 2022, Patrick was informed by the company of their decision to retrench him. In the letter, the company stated that his last day of service would be 31st January 2022. The company claims that they had to retrench him when one of their major clients, Hume Industries, terminated the haulage contract with the company. This termination resulted in the company facing a huge loss and since the company is unable to find other suitable job within the company for Patrick, they have no choice but to terminate him. Patrick was also offered a sum of money as payment in lieu of 3 months' termination notice amounting to RM13,000. Patrick is devastated by this news. Along with several colleagues who are also terminated by Wuhan Logistics, Patrick brought a case for dismissal without just cause and excuse against the company. The following are the facts as submitted by the parties during the trial: i. Patrick claimed that the company did not follow the required procedure in failing to provide proper and sufficient notice of retrenchment, but the company asserted that they had briefed all the employees concerned during an employee town hall meeting. ii. iii. iv. V. Patrick claimed that under the LIFO principles, there are many other junior employees that should be retrenched, but they were not. Thus, his termination was done in bad faith. The company responded by saying that other sections are not affected, only the section handling the Hume contract. Patrick claimed that the termination of Hume Industries haulage contract should not affect him as he can always be transferred to other sections in the company. He insisted that it is the company's legal obligation to provide training to him to enable him to be transferred to another position. The company denied this and said that the termination was due to redundancy and company need to retrench to get rid of the surplus manpower to reduce their financial loss. Patrick alleged that after his termination, the company, despite their claim of financial difficulties, had advertised for jobs which are similar to his, thus making their claim of redundancy unjustified. The company simply denied this. Finally, Patrick alleged that the compensation paid to him is not according to the law where the company merely paid him 3 months' worth of salary. He claimed that having worked for 9 years; the compensation should be his salary multiplied to his years of service. Thus, he claimed that this is another proof of the company's ill intention towards him. Based on the facts given above, the rules of Malaysian labour laws and case laws relating to termination and retrenchment: a. discuss the allegations put forward by Patrick and the company's response. Decide, based on your discussion, whether Patrick would be successful in his claim for unjust termination. b. assumed that Patrick won the case against Wuhan Logistics. Explain and calculate the amount of compensation that he may get from the company as remedy for the unjust termination. You may make any necessary assumptions to assist you in coming up with a complete answer.