Make payment of the two (2) months salary by the respondent to the appellant.” [11] In the respondent’s letter of resignation dated 13.6.2022, the respondent had given one (1) month’s notice to the appellant. The relevant part of the respondent’s letter dated 13.6.2022 is reproduced below: “Please accept this letter as formal notification that I am Ng Poi Kuan resigning from my position …effective one (1) month from this date and my last day will be Tuesday, 12.7.2022…” [12] In the respondent’s resignation letter to the appellant dated 20.6.2022, the respondent had given the appellant 24 hours notice and stated that she would pay the two (2) months salary in lieu of two (2) months notice. [13] For easy of reference, the excerpt of the respondent’s letter dated 20.6.2022 is reproduced below: “Please accept this letter as formal notification that I am Ng Poi Kuan resigning from my position as HR Executive effective twenty four hours (24 hrs). My last day will be today 20.6.2022 … As per offer letter under paragraph (5) termination of Engagement by Notice, the engagement may be terminated at any time by the company or by the employee giving two (2) months’ written notice to the other or at the option of the company by the payment of two (2) months’ salary in lieu of notice… Referred to the above statement, I shall give a payment of two (2) months’ salary in lieu of notice… I will payment of two (2) months salary in lieu of notice, within 14 working days” [Emphasis added] [14] From the terms of the contract of employment, it is clear that the respondent is required to give two (2) months’ notice to the appellant. The respondent’s letter dated 13.6.2022 stated a notice period of one month only. [15] In the respondent’s subsequent letter of resignation dated 20.6.2022, the respondent gave 24 hours’ notice to the appellant. [16] As there are two letters of resignation from the respondent to the appellant, this court is of the considered view the latter letter is the letter to take effect, and as the latter letter supersedes the first letter dated 13.6.2022. [17] As this court has found the letter of 20.6.2022 is the letter of resignation by the respondent, the respondent had given the appellant 24 hours notice. The provision of the employment contract requires two (2) months’ salary to be paid in lieu of two (2) months’ notice period. In her letter dated 20.6.2022, the respondent had stated she would pay the two (2) months’ salary within 14 days. However, this did not happen and thus it would appear that the respondent is in contravention of the provision of the employment contract. [18] The Labour Court had found that the respondent was required to pay the two months’ notice. The Labour Court found the appellant had not paid the respondent’s salary for May and June 2022. The Labour Court deemed the salary for May and June 2022 was the two months’ salary in lieu of notice. [19] Respectfully, this court does not agree with the Labour Court on this point. The respondent, in her letter dated 20.6.2022 had stated she would pay the two months’ salary within 14 days. It was therefore never the intention of the respondent to off set the salary of May and June for the two months’ salary she was to pay in lieu of notice. [20] In the considered view of this court, the respondent should have paid the two months’ salary to the appellant. In relation to the salary of May and June 2022, the respondent could have made a claim for that separately. Deduction of Salary by Appellant [21] Pertaining to the issue of deduction of salary, the facts reveal that at the time of the salary deduction, the country was going through the Covis-19 pandemic and the imposition of the Movement Control Order. [22] According to the appellant, the appellant had instructed the respondent to issue the memo of the reduction of the salary in relation to the different levels of the employees. The respondent has admitted the aforesaid. The respondent was the Human Resource Executive and was in charge of the affairs of the employees. Moreover, the respondent had attended to the issue of reduction of the salaries of the employees as she was the Human Resource Executive and obtained the signatures of all the employees. [23] The respondent contends that the respondent did not acquiesce to the reduction in salary. [24] The facts of this appeal reveal that the respondent continued to work with the appellant after the reduction in salary. There was no protest or objection by the respondent. There was no documentary evidence to indicate the respondent objected to the salary deduction. [25] In this appeal, the respondent was employed as a Human Resources Executive with the appellant. The job scope of the respondent included informing the other employees about the reduction in salary. The respondent had filed form PK with the authorities on the reduction in salaries. This was part of the respondent’s responsibilities. [26] The respondent did not object to the reduction of salary and from the conduct of the respondent, it could be deduced that the respondent had agreed to the reduction in salary. [27] In this regard, this court alluded to the case of Bank Pertanian Malaysia Bhd v MCI Bio Tech Sdn Bhd [2013] 9 CLJ 29 in relation to the issue of waiver. The court stated as follows: “Examination of the grounds of judgment shows that the High Court addressed its mind to the conduct of the parties and the inferences that may be drawn therefrom. Now, if there had been departures and such non-compliance had been accepted without complaint or reservation, a party can ordinarily say the requirement of compliance had been waived.” [Emphasis added] [28] From the conduct of the respondent, this court therefore is of the considered view that the respondent had agreed to the reduction in salary. This is particularly so since it is the respondent who was tasked to inform the other employees about the salary reduction, including her own salary reduction. Breach of Terms of Employment [29] The contract of employment plainly states the respondent was required to give two months notice period in the event of resignation. In the respondent’s letter dated 13.6.2022, the respondent gave one month notice period. This is clearly is not in accordance with the contract of employment. [30] Subsequently, the respondent sent another letter of resignation dated 20.6.22 giving 24 hours notice and paying the appellant two months salary in lieu of notice. It appears to this court that perhaps the respondent had realized her mistake in the first letter of resignation dated 13.6.22 by giving one months’ notice. She then rectified this by issuing another letter of resignation dated 20.6.2022 giving 24 hours’ notice. [31] In her second letter of resignation, the respondent had stated she would pay the two months salary in lieu of notice. She did not however, do so. [32] In the case of Pan Malaysian Pools Sdn Bhd v Kwan Tat Thai & Anor [2016] 12 MLJ 251, in respect of the contract, court stated: “In my judgment, there is no doubt that the contracting parties had intended for all the rules and policies of the company as may be formulated or revised from time to time to be incorporated by reference into the terms of the employment contract… The plaintiff claimed for breach of their express and/or implied terms of their employment contract; and breach of their terms of employment…” [33] In the considered view of this court, the respondent did not comply with the provisions of the contract of employment and is therefore in breach of the said contract. Conclusion [34] For the aforesaid reasons, this court is finds the Labour Court had erred in its decision. The decision of the Labour Court is set aside. This appeal is allowed with the following orders: