The court determined the employer's right to dismiss for poor performance is valid if due process is followed, emphasizing the importance of employer's assessment credibility.

[1] The Applicant filed this judicial review application seeking for an order of certiorari to quash the 2nd Respondent's ("the Industrial Court") Award No 840 of 2020 dated 17 June 2020 ("the Award") where the Industrial Court had dismissed the Applicant's claim for unfair dismissal.

Background Facts

[2] The Applicant commenced employment with Perbadanan Nasional Shipping Line Berhad as Accounts Clerk with effect from 1 August 1986. Perbadanan Nasional Shipping Line Berhad was then acquired by the 1st Respondent ("the Company") in 1998.

[3] Upon obtaining his Bachelor's degree, the Applicant was appointed as Administrator, Ship Design at Fleet Technical Service-Project, Fleet Management Services with effect from 2007.

[4] The Applicant was later promoted and transferred to the post of Executive Strategic Planning & Admin Support at Strategic Planning & Quality Review of Group Internal Audit ("GIA") with effect from 1 January 2014.

[5] With effect from 1 April 2017, pursuant to a restructuring in the GIA, the Applicant's post was renamed to Auditor and he was made to be in charge of Quality Assurance in the Company where the key responsibilities of the Applicant include the followings:

i. Quarterly Audit Status Report ("QASR") planning, monitoring and reporting;

ii. Quality review of audit documentation in Teammate System;

iii. Quality Assessment & Improvement Program planning, monitoring and reporting;

iv. Identifying and planning the staff development training for GIA employees.?

[6] The Applicant was rated 3L (Low) ie partially meeting the expectations in his overall performance for 2017. Thereafter, he was placed under a Performance Improvement Plan ("PIP") for six (6) months from 1 April 2018 until 30 September 2018. During this period, the Applicant was on medical leave from 27 June 2018 until 7 July 2018 and thereafter from 8 August 2018 until 7 September 2018, a total of 42 days.

[7] Pursuant to the Applicant's request via his email of 26 September 2018 for an extension of time of the PIP on account of his medical leave the Company agreed to extend the PIP from 1 October 2018 until 11 November 2018 corresponding with the number of days he was on medical leave. The Applicant was accordingly under the PIP from 1 April 2018 until 11 November 2018. During this period, there were five (5) performance reviews conducted with the Applicant's superior Ms Anis Mohd Ghazali who is the Senior Auditor of the GIA ("COW-1").

[8] On 13 November 2018, at the final review, the Applicant's performance remained at 3L. The rating was subsequently endorsed by the Performance Improvement Review Committee ("PRIC").

[9] The Company decided to dismiss the Applicant on the ground that the Applicant was unable to improve his performance.

[10] On 19 November 2018, a meeting was held to notify the Applicant of the outcome of the PIP review and the decision. By letter of the same date, the Applicant's employment was terminated with effect from 23 November 2018 and was paid three (3) months' salary in lieu of notice.

The Award

[11] The learned Chairman in the Award ruled that based on the evidence adduced by the parties in totality and based on the principles of law on poor performance which is stated to have been fulfilled by the Company, the Applicant's termination was found to be justified.

Summary Of The Applicant's Contentions

[12] Summarily, the Applicant contends the followings:

i. That the Industrial Court had erred and failed to take into consideration the incoherent evaluat