SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2021 MarsdenLR 3629

HIGH COURT MALAYA MUAR
BIMACH POWERHOUSE SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
SANIZAL MAHAMAD (ENCLS 1 4 5 & 12) – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: JB-16-7-11/2020]



Petitioner Advocates:Kavitha Guna Segaran,Paramjit Singh Pretam Singh ,Respondent Advocate: Mohd Radzi Yatiman

Employment dismissals require adherence to procedural safeguards, ensuring fair hearings under the Employment Act 1955.

Headnote:The case concerns an appeal against the Director-General of the Labour Department, which ruled that the Appellant failed to observe due process under section 14(1) of the Employment Act 1955, requiring a proper domestic inquiry before dismissal. The Appellant contended that the decision was erroneous and sought clarity on the nature of Jurisdiction exercised during such appeals. The court reinforced that the principles of natural justice, particularly ‘audi alteram partem’, are fundamental to employment decisions. Compensatory relief was mandated for the Respondent, equating to the notice period.

Table of Content
1. the importance of procedural fairness in employment dismissals. (Para 1 , 3 , 5 , 6)
2. establishing the requirements for a fair inquiry in dismissal cases. (Para 20 , 75 , 90)
3. the director-general's ruling aligns with statutory compliance. (Para 146 , 149 , 150)
Awang Armadajaya Awang Mahmud JC:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the Director-General of the Labour Department, Malaysia given on 5 November 2020 in Segamat whereby the Director-General ruled that the Appellant is to pay the Respondent the sum of RM5,000.00 as compensation in lieu of termination notice.

[2] The cause papers are as follows:

i. The Notice of Appeal (Enclosure 1).

ii. Appeal Record (Enclosure 4).

iii. Supplementary Appeal Record (Enclosure 5).

iv. Additional Appeal Record (Enclosure 12).

Background Facts

[3] The Appellant (who is the Defendant in the proceedings before the Director-General, Labour Department) is a company incorporated in Malaysia pursuant to the Companies Act 1965. The Appellant runs 2 shops selling tyres and other car parts in Segamat including BPH Tyre Taman Eastern Shop where the Respondent was working prior to 1 September 2019. After 1 September 2019, the Respondent was directed to serve at BPH Tyre Taman Yayasan Shop ("the said Shop") until 21 January 2020.

[4] The Appellant has 10 staff working for him in both establishments.

[5] The Respondent is a natural person and he was a staff of the Appellant.

[6] Initially in April 2019, the Respondent was offered a temporary contract of employment as a Technical Specialist for a period of 3 months. The Respondent performed well during the period and he was extended and offered a permanent contract vide a Letter of Offer dated 20 July 2019. (Appeal Record p 101-102 (Enclosure 4).

[7] The Respondent was paid a basic salary of RM1,800.00 a month and an Attendance Allowance of RM700.00 a month. The Respondent is only entitled to the full sum of RM700.00 if he reports for duty and with full attendance and punctually throughout the month.

[8] The respondent was shown and explained the Employees Handbook ("the said Handbook") by the Appellant's finance executive, Ms Gan Jing Yi. The Respondent was informed that he is subjected to the said Handbook. The duties of a Technical Specialist are as follows:

i. To manage and oversee the overall operation of the shop and to ensure the business operations were carried out properly;

ii. To ensure the opening of the shop and related activities are done on time;

iii. To calculate the quantity of stock of goods and record the tally in the UBS inventory system once a week by ensuring the quantity of the same matches the stock ordered and shipped by the supplier;

iv. To ensure that the stocks are arranged at the location provided for and are kept in good condition;

v. To ensure that the other employees performed their daily task properly;

vi. To provide the appropriate and relevant training to employees in performing their respective duties;

vii. To serve the customers well;

viii. To repair the customers' car; and

ix. To perform and comply with work instructions given by immediate superior.

[9]Vide a letter dated 17 January 2020 ("the 1st warning letter"), the Respondent was given a warning for failing to comply with the Standard Operating Procedure ("SOP") practiced at said Shop. The Respondent was required to take photographs to show that the said Shop was ready for business operation and send the photographs, by using the mobile telephone provided by the said Shop, to Ms Gan via a WhatsApp Group Chat known as the "Family BPH Tire Taman Yayasan" ("the WhatsApp Group").

[10] On the dates stated in the 1st warning letter, the Respondent allegedly failed to comply with the SOP inspite of repeated reminders in the WhatsApp Group.

[11] In January 2020, the Appellant conducted an investigation at the said Shop and found that the stock of goods, for the period between 1 November 2019 and 17 January 2020, which were under the control and supervisi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top