Back
2011 MarsdenLR 1162
ROSLAN MAT NOR
NORHAPIZAH KHAIRANI – Appellant
Versus
BANK MUAMALAT MALAYSIA BERHAD – Respondent
Employees in financial institutions are required to maintain high standards of conduct, but dismissal for alleged misconduct must be based on clear evidence and proper procedure.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 23(6) - Dismissal of employee - The court considered the validity of dismissal based on procedures followed during an internal investigation, emphasizing the duties of trust placed on bank employees and the need for prompt resolution of labor disputes. (Paras 14-27)
(B) Partheard Cases - The ruling establishes that partheard cases should continue without a de novo hearing unless substantial injustice is shown. (Paras 13-16)
Facts of the case:
Claimant was a bank employee dismissed for alleged misappropriation of funds and failure to follow proper procedures in a transaction involving a customer's account. Evidence suggested that the claimant had acted with the customer's consent, and procedural approvals were obtained.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that there was no evidence of wrongdoing by the claimant, and the dismissal was found to be without just cause.
Issues: The court addressed whether the claimant had committed misconduct warranting dismissal and if the approval process for transactions was sufficient.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the claimant acted within the scope of her duties and received requisite approvals, establishing no misconduct that justified dismissal.
Result: The claimant is to be reinstated in her position with back pay.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the procedure of case hearing and award delivery. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. employment background and allegations against the claimant. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. details of the internal inquiry and testimonies. (Para 7 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 18) |
| 4. legal analysis on misconduct in banking contexts. (Para 8 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 19) |
| 5. claimant’s perspective and defense (Para 9) |
| 6. conclusion on the suitability of reinstatement versus compensation. (Para 16 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 27) |
| 7. evaluation of misconduct and dismissal justification (Para 23) |
| 8. decision on reinstatement and compensation (Para 25 , 26) |
Latar Belakang Kes
1. Kes ini telah pertama kalinya didengar pada 25.05.2009 di hadapan Pengerusi yang telah dilantik menjadi Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman pada 01.06.2010. Pengerusi berkenaan telah mendengar keterangan kesemua saksi-saksi di dalam kes ini iaitu melibatkan lima orang saksi Pihak Responden dan tiga orang saksi Pihak Menuntut. Peguam Pihak Menuntut dan Peguam Pihak Responden telah masing-masing memfailkan hujahan mereka di Mahkamah setelah perbicaraan berakhir pada 04.05.2010.
2. Pada 11.06.2011, Yang DiPertua Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia telah mengarahkan award bagi kes ini diturunkan oleh saya. Semasa menurunkan award ini, Mahkamah hanya akan meneliti keterangan-keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh saksi-saksi melalui catatan yang dibuat oleh Pengerusi yang membicarakan kes ini. Di samping itu, Mahkamah juga akan merujuk kepada hujahan kedua-dua belah pihak serta eksibit-eksibit yang dikemukakan. Arahan Yang DiPertua Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia untuk Pengerusi lain menurunkan award bagi kes ini adalah sejajar dengan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi di dalam kes Box Global (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. v. Sukhdev Singh Pritam Singh & Anor di mana Y.A. Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Hadhariah Syed Ismail menyatakan seperti berikut:-
"My view, upon reading the English case of Bolton v. Bolton cited by counsel for the applicant is this. Firstly, whilst the case shows the approach of the English court seems to be if a case has been part heard before a judge or a magistrate, it is not proper, even with the consent of the parties for another judge to continue the proceedings, it is not known whether the same is true now. Secondly, it is obvious that such an approach is not applicable in our country. I see no reason why we should follow an English case when there are Malaysian cases which bind this court by the application of stare decisis principle.
(13) Analysis of several industrial court decisions referred to by the parties here revealed conflicting views as to whether a partheard case should be heard de novo or not. But the approach taken by civil court seemed settled. The partheard case is always continued by the next prosiding officer from where it was left. In those days, where three to four officers were transferred within a short space of time, one can see three to four Magistrate or Sessions Court Judges hear one case before the case was finally concluded.
(14) Section 23 (6) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 states:-
(6) During the absence of or inability to act from illness or any other cause by the Chairman, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may appoint another person to exercise the powers or perform the functions of the Chairman and, notwithstanding that the Chairman may have resumed the duties of his office, the person so appointed may continue to exercise the powers or perform the functions for the purpose of completing the hearing of and determining any trade dispute or matter commenced before him.
(15) Given a literal interpretation, it is clear that s. 23(6) allows another chairman to continue hearing a partheard case. To say otherwise would be contrary to the intention of Parliament when enacting the IRA Act 1967 which is to ensure speedy disposal of industrial disputes; see Kathiravelu Ganeson v. Kojasa Holdings Berhad .
(16) Quite apart from the interpretation of the law, I was of the view that irrespective whether it is a civil or trade disput
