A PYRRHIC victory is a win that comes at such a great cost that it feels like a defeat.
It is attributed to King Pyrrhus of Epirus, a Greek leader whose army beat the Romans at the Battle of Asculum in 279 BC. However, he lost so many soldiers and trusted officers that he could not replace them ultimately losing the war.
This was the scenario painted by some human resource experts regarding an unlawful dismissal case involving PETRONAS’s former internal audit head (corporate) Syed Fazal Syed Thajudeen.
The gist of the issue centred around overclaims by Syed Fazal while on a scholarship to pursue an MBA at the IESE Business School in Barcelona (2018-2020).
Apparently, Syed Fazal’s monthly allowance was increased from €2,700 to €3,700 because he indicated his two children might join him.
The children never moved to Spain but he continued to collect the extra allowance, accumulating an overclaim of €9,810. The national oil corporation eventually terminated his employment in December 2019 following an internal inquiry.
The Industrial Court originally ruled in Syed Fazal’s favour by awarding him RM772,005. It applied the principle of proportionality by deciding that termination was too harsh given his 13 years of clean service and lack of criminal charges.
Kuala Lumpur High Court Judge Alice Loke upheld the Industrial Court’s ruling that Syed Fazal was dismissed without just cause despite finding that he had committed misconduct by receiving higher allowances after telling his employer that his two children would join him in Spain when they did not.
Career red mark
While Loke agreed the over-claiming constituted misconduct, she regarded the outright dismissal as disproportionate.
Following this, the High Court reduced the final payout to RM621,777 after implementing a 30% reduction on the initial back wages. This was due to Syed Fazal’s contributory fault for failing to notify PETRONAS of the on-going overpayment.
This case was shared on Threads by career coach Zaim Mohzani (@zaim.mohzani) where it was observed that the misconduct was proven but NOT disputed.
The issue here was whether the punishment fits the crime. In this instance, the High Court agreed with the Industrial Court that dismissal was too harsh.
A “pyrrhic victory” was the conclusion of some HR observers who noted that other companies will definitely “think twice before hiring him”.
Many were quite stunned that this was the conduct of a person entrusted to be an internal audit head. It was a behaviour that would have been flagged as inappropriate by his own department and thus he should have known better.
Some alluded to the damaged reputation which would make any future life in the corporate sector exceedingly difficult.
A few corporate insiders were of the opinion that this court decision seemed to encourage staff to defraud their employers.
The sense of bemusement was apparent with various commenters holding the view such was a conduct unbecoming of a head of department overseeing plenty of sensitive documents.
Interestingly, there was a clarification as to the employee’s exact position with this commenter expressing surprise that his LinkedIn profile was still active after all this publicity.
More than one confused netizen was of the opinion that this judicial decision was the reason why dishonest types keep doing what they do.
There is an overwhelming sentiment online that the party who is guilty of misconduct has gotten away with one. It remains to be seen whether PETRONAS will appeal this decision.
Bottom line is that ‘honesty is still the best policy’ as remarked by this conscientious commenter but unfortunately, that virtue seems to be in short supply. – Sept 2, 2026
