Back
2003 MarsdenLR 790
INDUSTRIAL COURT, PENANG
ACIDCHEM (M) BHD – Appellant
Versus
GOH HOCK TEONG – Respondent
Award No. 256 Of 2003 [Case No: 5/4-419/95]
AWARD
The claimant commenced employment in the company as a fitter on 16 March 1992. His last drawn salary was RM947 per month.
The claimant in his statement of case stated that during his tenure of office from 16 March 1992 to the date of termination of service he had not breached any of the company's in-house regulations or committed any misconduct.
The claimant claims that the company issued him a warning letter dated 23 January 1995 alleging breach of safety regulations. The claimant strenuously denies such allegation.
The claimant further states that he was again served with a charge sheet dated 27 January 1995 containing several allegations of misconduct. On 6 February 1995, the company held a domestic inquiry against the claimant.
The claimant attended the domestic inquiry where he did not plead guilty to the charges. The charges read:
(i)Use of derogatory language ie, "India Pariah" towards senior personnel and administration officer.
(ii)Provocative behaviour ie tapping the leg of the senior personnel & administration officer and saying "apa you boleh buat".
(iii)Banging the table of the general affairs manager.
The claimant subsequently received a letter of termination of service. The termination letter by the company to the claimant reads:
16 February 1995
Mr. Goh Hock Teong
Fitter III
Maintenance Department
Dear Sir,
Re: Dismissal
We refer to the domestic inquiry held on 6th February 1995 and regret to inform you that you have been found guilty as charged.
Since the offences are very serious in nature, the Management has no other alternative except to dismiss you from service. Your dismissal will be effective today ie, 16th February 1995.
Kindly collect whatever monies due to you from the Personnel Department.
Yours truly
ACIDCHEM (M) BHD.
Signed
ABDUL HALIM MOHD NOR
GROUP HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER
cc En. A Zulhany
The claimant is of the view that the termination is unlawful and bad in law for the following reasons:
(i)That the inquiry was biased in its decision and took in to account matters which were not relevant;
(ii)The inquiry board refused to take into consideration matters which were relevant and wilfully ignored the evidence of the applicant during the inquiry.
(iii)The inquiry board misdirected itself in law and facts.
He therefore prays for reinstatement.
The claimant was issued with a warning letter on 23 January 1995, over the claimant's failure to wear safety helmet near plant 31 on 20 January 1995 as well as for smoking outside the smoking zone on 21 January 1995. The claimant was also warned of more drastic disciplinary action in the future in the event the claimant committed similar or other offences. This letter was signed by V Guvendiran, senior personnel and admin officer (COW2) upon a complaint received from A Zulhany Kamaruzzaman, the general affairs manager (COW3)
On 26 January 1995, the claimant questioned Guvendiran (COW2) as to why he was issued a warning letter. Not happy with the explanation given the claimant abused Guvendiran by using the term "India Pariah". At the meeting later on that day with A Zulhany, (COW3) and in the presence of V Guvendiran, the claimant once again abused the latter as "Ini India Pariah" and then tried to provoke V Guvendiran by tapping him on the leg and then asking, "apa you boleh buat". The claimant had then angrily banged on Zulhany's table before leaving the office of Zulhany.
A complaint on the above incident was made by Guvendiran to Abdul Halim Mohd Noor, the group human resource manager.
The claimant had on 26 January 1995 at around 4pm to 5pm once again used the term "India Pariah"on Guvendiran, in the presence of Azahar Osman, safety technician.
The claimant was issued a charge sheet/notice of inquiry on 27 January 1995 requesting the claimant to attend a domestic inquiry on 6 February 1995.
The claimant wrote to the company on 30 January 1999 and among others, stated the following:
(i)He thought the nickname for Guvendiran was "Pariah". In doing so, the claimant admitted using the term
