Back
2010 MarsdenLR 3254
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC CO (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
K MANMATHAN – Respondent
Award No 671 Of 2010 [Case No: 11/4-980/06]
The employer must prove just cause for dismissal; lack of knowledge regarding the status of the voucher led to the court finding the dismissal unjustified.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(1) - Dismissal for alleged misconduct - The claimant dismissed for being in possession of a stolen voucher, which he claims to have purchased from a co-worker - Domestic Inquiry conducted, finding claimant guilty - Court holds claimant not guilty of misconduct due to lack of knowledge of the voucher's status. (Paras 27, 28)
(B) Misconduct - The essential issue lies in whether the claimant had knowledge that the voucher was stolen - Evidence supports the claimant's belief in the legitimacy of his possession, thus nullifying the charges against him. (Paras 24, 25)
Facts of the case:
The claimant employed since June 1991 held a supervisor position and was dismissed on February 18, 2003, after being accused of using a stolen voucher for purchases. A Domestic Inquiry substantiated the dismissal, citing three charges against him.
Findings of Court:
The court determined the claimant did not know the voucher was stolen, and therefore the dismissal lacked just cause or excuse, resulting in a ruling for reinstatement.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the claimant's possession of a stolen voucher amounted to misconduct warranting dismissal. The inquiry into the knowledge of the voucher's status was pivotal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court articulated that the burden of proving misconduct lies with the employer. As the claimant provided a plausible explanation for possession, it was established he was not guilty of misconduct. Additionally, domestic inquiry findings do not bind the court but may inform its decision. (Paras 14, 25, 26)
Result: Claimant is reinstated to his previous position and awarded backwages for 12 months.
AWARD
Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham:
[1] The claimant commenced his employment with the company as a production staff on 26 June 1991. He was dismissed from the company on 18 February 2003. The claimant prior to dismissal, held the position as a supervisor at the Rice Cooker Department and his last drawn salary was RM2,700.
[2] The events leading to his dismissal are as follows.
[3] The company on 20 November 2002 had distributed to all employees vouchers in conjunction with the "MELCOM 35th Anniversary" wherein each voucher was valued at RM300. The voucher entitled the holder to purchase or redeem any electrical goods from the company.
[4] On 24 December 2002, Mr Ramanathan the Head of the Company's Electric Iron Department had issued a memorandum to COW1, the Company's Human Resource Manager regarding the loss of a voucher belonging to Cik Salmah binti Selamat (employee number 04085) from the desk drawer of COW2 the administrative clerk which was broken open forcefully by someone. The said voucher No is 0093101. COW2 realized that her drawer was broken on 11 December 2002, after coming back from the Hari Raya holidays but only realized the voucher was stolen on 20 December 2002, when Cik Salmah to whom the voucher was issued came to collect the voucher. The Human Resource Department under the circumstances agreed to replace the stolen voucher belonging to Cik Salmah Binti Selamat.
[5] On 17 January 2003 the claimant was found using voucher No 0093101 by presenting the said voucher to COW3 to pay for staff purchase items at the company. The voucher used by the claimant was voucher No 0093101 which was earlier reported as stolen by COW2 on 20 December 2002.
[6] The claimant was confronted by Cik Hamidah binti Mohd Rashid of the company's Finance Department and Encik Jamil Bin Yusof of the Human Resources Department on the same day where they queried the claimant as to why he was having voucher No 0093101 in his possession as the same was earlier reported as stolen on 20 December 2002.
[7] The claimant claimed that he had bought voucher No 0093101 from COW4. The company investigated and COW4 was contacted. COW4 is a former staff of the company who has resigned on 27 December 2002. COW4 was called to the company on 17 January 2003 where he informed one Encik Manap from the Human Resource Department that he did not sell any voucher to the claimant. He also wrote a letter dated 17 January 2003 wherein he informed the company that he did not sell any voucher to the claimant.
[8] The claimant then on 17 January 2003 tendered his resignation wherein he informed the company that he was tendering his resignation with immediate effect for unavoidable reasons. The claimant subsequently approached the Electrical Industry Workers Union and on 29 January 2003 wrote to the company that he wished to withdraw his letter of resignation dated on 17 January 2003. The General Secretary of the Electrical Union also wrote a letter on 29 January 2003 to the General Manager of Human Resource to allow the claimant to withdraw his resignation letter dated 17 January 2003 and to reinstate the claimant to his former position.
[9] The company on the 29 January 2003 responded by allowing the claimant to withdraw his resignation and requested the claimant to report to work on 30 January 2003. The company further informed the claimant that the company would proceed with the appropriate disciplinary procedure against him.
[10] On 30 January 2003, the company issued a notice to attend a Domestic Inquiry to the claimant informing him that the company has decided to convene a Domestic Inquiry on 10 February 2003 to inquire into the allegation of misconduct. The company in the same letter issued 3 charges against the claimant and suspended him from duty effective 30 January 2003. The three charges are;
1. On 17 January 2003, at Finance Department you were found in possession of stolen voucher belonging to Salmah bt. Selamat (Employee No 04085) of Electric Iron Department.
2. On 17 Jan
