Employers bear the burden of proof to justify dismissals under employment law; failure to follow procedural fairness results in finding dismissals as without just cause.

The Reference

[1] This is a reference dated 5 July 2020 by Honourable Minister of Human Resources pursuant to s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("The Act") arising out of the alleged dismissal of MARIAPPAN A/L DHANAPAL ("Claimant") by KHP STEEL PRODUCT (M) SDN BHD ("Company") on the 10 December 2019.

[2] Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the parties in this matter filed their respective submissions dated 19 September 2022 (Claimant's written submissions), 19 September 2022 (Company's written submissions), 30 September 2022 (Claimant's submissions in reply) and 3 October 2022 (Company's reply written submissions).

[3] This Court considered all the notes of proceedings in this matter, documents and the cause papers in handing down this Award namely:

(i) The Claimant's Statement of Case dated 18 August 2020;

(ii) The Company's Statement in Reply dated 17 September 2020;

(iii) The Claimant's Rejoinder dated 24 September 2020;

(iv) The Claimant's Bundle of Documents - CLB;

(v) The Company's Bundle of Documents - COB & CO 1;

(vi) The Claimant's Witness Statement - CLW - WS;

(vii) Company's Witness Statement - COW - WS (Tan Guang Ming).

Introduction

[4] The dispute before this Court is the claim by Mariappan a/l Dhanapal (Claimant) that he had been dismissed from his employment without just cause or excuse by KHP Steel Product (M) Sdn Bhd (Company) on 10 December 2019.

[5] By way of a contract of employment dated 9 July 2018, the Claimant was employed as a Production Operator by the Company with a basic salary of RM1,100.00 per month. The Claimant was subsequently confirmed in his employment on 1 January 2019 and his basic salary was increased to RM1,150.00 per month. The Claimant was terminated from his employment with the Company on 10 December 2019 on the allegation that the Claimant had breached the terms of his contract of employment with the Company. Amongst other allegations against the Claimant were that he had failed to satisfactorily perform his duties as Production Operator, arguing with co-workers and not following his superior's instructions. The Claimant denies all the allegations levelled against him by the Company. The Claimant states that he was arbitrarily and summarily dismissed from his employment without the Company issuing any show cause letter or conducting any domestic inquiry to fairly decide on the various the allegations levelled against the Claimant. The Claimant now prays that he be reinstated to his former position without any loss of wages and other benefits. The Company does not dispute or deny that it had not conducted any domestic inquiry (DI) or issued any show cause letter to the Claimant to enable the Claimant to answer the charges of misconduct alleged but contends that it is not detrimental to the Claimant's case as the Industrial Court proceeding will decide whether the Claimant's termination was with just cause or excuse. The Company maintains that it had dismissed the Claimant due to his misconducts and unsatisfactory performance and prays that the Claimant's claims be dismissed.

[6] The Claimant gave evidence under oath and remained the sole witness for his case. The Company's evidence was adduced through the Company's sole witness COW (Tan Guang Ming, who is the Company's branch manager for East Coast Region who is in charge of the operations and business growth of the Company in the East Coast Region branch in Mentakab, Pahang and who gave evidence on the Claimant's alleged misconducts and poor performance)

The Claimant's Case

[7] The Claimant's case can be summarised as follows:

(i) By way of a contract of employment dated 9