MOHAMAD MUDA vs M3NERGY BERHAD

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 MarsdenLR 25

INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
MOHAMAD MUDA – Appellant
Versus
M3NERGY BERHAD – Respondent

Table of Content
1. facts of misconduct leading to dismissal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. burden of proof rests with the employer. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. analysis of evidence and justification for dismissal. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
4. final ruling on the dismissal claim. (Para 34)

AWARD

Rosenani Abd Rahman:

Brief Facts

[1] The Claimant commenced employment with the Company as General Manager (QHSE) on 01 August 2006 and his position was later confirmed on 15 February 2007 with a basic salary of RM18,000.00. Refer to the Letter of Appointment dated 14 June 2006 and Letter of Confirmation on 15 February 2007 (pp 4 - 11 of COB). The Company provided the Claimant with a Company car, a fuel fleet card usage up to a maximum of RM1,000.00 per month and also a Company handphone. The Claimant report directly to the Chief Operating Officer (COO). The Claimant was in charge of the overall quality, health and safety aspect of the Company and its group of Company.

[2] Around early March 2009 the Company CEO Datuk Shahrazi (COW1) had received information in the form of a printed email indicating that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 MarsdenLR 25

INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPURMOHAMAD MUDA – AppellantVersusM3NERGY BERHAD – Respondent

Cases Referred (4)

INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
MOHAMAD MUDA – Appellant
Versus
M3NERGY BERHAD – Respondent