A claimant's dismissal without just cause based on procedural unfairness necessitates compensation rather than reinstatement.

[1] The Ministerial reference in this case required the Court to hear and determine the Claimant's complaint of dismissal by the Company on 22nd August 2016.

Procedural History

[2] The Court received the letter pertaining to the Ministerial reference under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 on 4th May 2017.

[3] The matters were fixed for mention on 16th May, 2017, 19th July 2017, 24th August 2017, 12th September 2017, 5th June 2018, 7th June 2018 and 26th June 2018. The Company was represented by their solicitors, Messrs Daim & Gamany on these dates. The hearing dates of 4th and 5th July 2018 was fixed as early as ten months ago, ie on 12th September 2017. The Company and their solicitors were aware of these hearing dates at all material times.

[4] On 26th June 2018, the Company's solicitors wrote to this Court requesting for the hearing dates of 4th and 5th July 2018 to be adjourned to another date as their counsel in charge of the matter, Ms Latheefa Koya, will be engaged in the Court of Appeal and Sessions Court respectively on the said hearing dates. Being a task force Court, this Court had refused to grant the adjournment applied for. However, instead of seeking an appointment with this Court to find a solution by rearranging the time the hearing is to commence without vacating the said dates, the Company's solicitors had written another letter on the eve of the hearing stating that if the adjournment is not granted then they would discharge themselves from acting as solicitors for the Company. The Company's solicitors even seemed to suggest that since the Claimant's solicitors were not objecting to their application for adjournment, there was no reason why this Court should refuse the same. As stated above, the Company's solicitors knew of the hearing dates of 4th and 5th July 2018 since 12th September 201 and there was no reason why they could not have informed the Court of Appeal and Sessions Court of the same when they were fixing hearing dates in those courts during case management. In fact, there was nothing produced before this Court by the Company's solicitors that the hearing dates in the Court of Appeal and Sessions Court were fixed before 12th September 2017.

[5] At 9.35am on the hearing date, ie, 4th July 2018, one Ms Revathy from Messrs Daim & Gamany, appeared for the Company. The Company's representatives, ie one Mr Ng Kian Eng (Sales Manager) and one Mr Koey Teow Teik (Operations Manager) were also present in Court. The Claimant's counsel informed the Court that the Claimant is ready to proceed with the matter. Ms Revathy however informed the Court that since Ms Latheefa Koya is engaged in the Court of Appeal, therefore they have to request for an adjournment. The Court was prepared to stand down the matter to 2.30pm for Ms Latheefa Koya to complete her matter in the Court of Appeal. However, Ms Revathy informed that Ms Latheefa is not agreeable for the matter to be stood down and insisted on an adjournment and that if the requested adjournment is not given, then they will discharge themselves as solicitors for the Company. The Court refused to allow the adjournment. The Company's solicitors had simply taken it for granted that this Court was obliged to accede to their request for an adjournment made at such a late stage.