Back
2009 MarsdenLR 4803
ROSLAN MAT NOR
CF LEE MANAGEMENT SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
NADARAJAH VENGEDASALAM – Respondent
A termination of employment must have just cause, and misconduct severity must be weighed against the process of dismissal, ensuring fairness per legal stipulations.
Headnote:(A) Employment Act 1955 - Section 60A and Section 15(2) - Termination of employment - Claimant was dismissed for sleeping during duty and unauthorized absence - The court found that the claimant's absence did not exceed the stipulated duration for dismissal and considered his misconduct serious. (Paras 18, 22, 24)
(B) Burden of proof - The burden rests on the employer to demonstrate just cause for dismissal. The evidence did not substantiate claims against the claimant sufficiently, thus warranting a review of fairness in disciplinary action. (Paras 16, 27)
Facts of the case:
The claimant was employed as a security guard and terminated in March 2004 for alleged misconduct including sleeping during duty and unauthorized absence. The processes followed in termination were contested.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the termination was justified based on the gravity of the offenses described, reinforcing the need for employers to maintain discipline while ensuring due process.
Issues: The key issues included the legitimacy of the claimant's dismissal, the evidence supporting misconduct allegations, and whether the penalties were proportionate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the claimant's absence and alleged sleeping during duty were serious but determined that the dismissal was also contingent upon the legitimacy of notices and adherence to legal stipulations, which appeared conflicted.
Result: The dismissal was deemed to be with just cause.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's authority and procedural matters (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. facts around the claimant's termination (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 21) |
| 3. evaluation of evidence regarding misconduct (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. assessment of the seriousness of misconduct (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. legal framework regarding working hours and misconduct (Para 19 , 20) |
| 6. arguments regarding fairness and proportionality of dismissal (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. conclusion on the justness of termination (Para 28) |
Latar belakang
1. Kes ini telah dibicarakan di hadapan Yang DiPertua, Mahkamah Perusahaan yang telah dilantik sebagai Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman pada 14.8.2009. Pihak-pihak telah memfailkan hujjahan masing-masing sebelum Yang DiPertua Mahkamah ini dilantik ke jawatan Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman.
2. Kedua-dua pihak telah menzahirkan hasrat serta persetujuan mereka untuk award ini diturunkan oleh Pengerusi yang lain disebabkan Mantan Yang DiPertua, Mahkamah Perusahaan tidak lagi dapat menurunkan award ini. Mereka tidak memaklumkan kepada Mahkamah untuk memfailkan hujjahan tambahan disamping yang telah difailkan sebelum ini.
3. Kini, saya telah diarahkan oleh Yang DiPertua, Mahkamah Perusahaan untuk menurunkan award ini. Saya menurunkan award ini berdasarkan nota keterangan yang dicatatkan oleh Mantan Yang DiPertua, Mahkamah Perusahaan semasa perbicaraan, ekshibit-ekshibit yang dikemukakan dan hujjahan-hujjahan yang telah difailkan.
Fakta Kes
4. Pihak Menuntut telah dilantik sebagai Pengawal Keselamatan mulai 5.8.2002. Sebagai Pengawal Keselamatan, beliau bertugas mengikut giliran. Giliran Tugasan adalah 6.00 pagi hingga 6.00 petang, 6.00 petang hingga 6.00 pagi. Dalam ertikata lain terdapat giliran bertugas malam dan siang.
5. Pada 1.3.2004, Pihak Menuntut telah menerima surat penamatan perkhidmatannya dengan Syarikat Responden. Surat tersebut adalah seperti berikut di halaman 1 COB:-
"Date: March 1st 2004
Attn : Mr Nadarajah a/l Vengedasalam
L-11-3, Megah Apartment, Taman Megah
91/2, Mile, Jalan Cheras,
43200 Cheras BY HAND/POST
Dear Sir
Re: Termination of your services/duties
1. We refer to our letter to you dated 17th December 2003
2. We regret to inform that our management has decided to terminate your services/duties with immediate effect.
3. The following are some of the reasons for termination but however not limited by these reasons solely:-
a) i) On the 28th of February 2003 at approximately 8.30 pm you notify your superior Encik Zamri bin Harun that you would be absent from your duty for 10 days with immediate effect. No special reasons were given and you confirmed it was not an emergency leave.
ii) This is considered to be very late notice and unacceptable because we could not find a replacement due to such unreasonable conduct and short notice given.
b) You have also been caught sleeping while on duty at about 10:00 pm on February 25th, 2004 by one of our company directors. This is a serious breach of our security regulations and moreover you only started work at 6:00 pm.
c) Your conduct/behavior towards you fellow colleagues have not improved since our last warning letter to you dated December 17th, 2003 and it has actually become worse.
Thank you.
Yours truly,
signed
Zamri bin Harun
Manager"
6. COW1 di dalam keterangan menyatakan pada 25.2.2004, pada kira-kira jam 10.00 malam, beliau telah mendapati Pihak Menuntut telah tidur semasa bertugas. Semasa memperihalkan kejadian tersebut, COW1 menyatakan semasa pemeriksaan balas:-
"On 25.2.2004, I saw the claimant with his head at the table sleeping. There were 2 guards in the guardhouse. I was in my car just outside the guardhouse."
COW1 juga menyatakan:-
"Yes, I could see claimant clearly."
7. Pihak Menuntut menafikan bahawa beliau tertidur semasa bertugas seperti yang dinyatakan oleh COW1. Di dalam keterangannya, Pihak Menuntut menerangkan berkenaan insiden menyatakan seperti berikut:-
"Yes, I agree that on 25.2.2004 I was a night shift.
Question: On night of 25
