The claimant joined the company as an Account & Administration Assistant sometime in November 1996 at a starting salary of RM1,900 per month. By letter dated 20 October 2000, the company terminated the claimant's services. The dispute is therefore over the summary dismissal of the claimant by the company.

The claimant claims that on 8 August 2000, the company informed her that no salary increment for her for the review year. The company also issued a new job description to the claimant incorporating extra and new tasks. On 22 August 2000, the company issued a Performance Appraisal to the claimant, stating that the claimant has failed to meet the requirements in the claimant's new job. The claimant avers that on 29 September 2000 the company e-mailed a show cause letter to the claimant. The claimant says she replied to the company's letter denying all the allegations on 29 September 2000 through e-mail.

It is her claim that despite the claimant's explanation on 29 September 2000, her services was terminated by the company by letter dated 20 October 2000.

It is her contention that the termination was without just cause or excuse; contrary to labour practice or act of victimisation. She wants reinstatement.

On the other hand the company pleads that the claimant committed the following:

(i) Misconduct ie habitual late coming; and

(ii) Poor performance.

The termination letter reads:

20 October, 2000

Teh Bee Bee,

Dear Bee Bee,

Re: Termination Letter

With reference to our "show cause" letter to you dated 29 September, 2000 which you received from me personally on the same day, you were required to provide us with a written response by Oct 6.

As of today, we have not received any response from you. In addition, you have continued to be late every day even after receiving the show cause letter. As such, you have neither demonstrated any effort to improve nor provided any reasons why appropriate actions should not be taken against you.

This is to inform you that your employment with Leo Burnett Advertising Sdn. Bhd. is being terminated effective immediately. We will pay you your full October's salary.

Please return all company properties by end of the day.

Your Sincerely

Signed

Chen Theng Aik

Finance Director.

It is the company's contention that the claimant was a habitual late comer. The termination letter of the claimant among other things also state that the Claimant continued to be late to work everyday even after receiving the show cause letter. Therefore the only reason why the claimant was dismissed was for her habitual late coming to work.

The show cause letter states that despite earlier discussions and written communications about her habitual late coming, the claimant continued to come late to work.

COW1 who testified in court did say that from the date he joined the company (COW1 joined later than the claimant), he had cautioned and sanctioned the Claimant for her habitual late coming and yet the claimant continued to come late to work. COW1 produced documents which would show the claimant's late comings.

The company issued the claimant with a show cause letter dated 29 September 2000. It is COW1's averment that the claimant continued to be late even after receiving the show cause letter. The claimant during cross-examination told the court that she replied to the show cause letter via e-mail. However when she was asked Whether she has a copy of the said reply she said she did not have.

The claimant also said her relationships with COW1 was not good. According to her COW1 issued several e-mails to her and they were misleading. However this issue is never raised by the claimant in her pleadings. Parties are bound by pleadings.

The show cause letter is a record of the claimant's late comings in the months of July, August and September:

(i) On 4 April 2000, COW1 sent the claimant an e-mail to discuss her problems (if any) with him, otherwise to report for work daily by 9.30 a.m. The Claimant did not see COW1. She continued t