The dispute before this court is in respect of the dismissal of the claimant by the company with effect from 12 June 1996.

The claimant joined the services of the company on 3 January 1995 as a process leader (junior supervisor). The claimants last drawn salary was RM935 per month.

The claimant avers that he met with an accident while traveling to work on 30 May 1996 at about 5.20a.m. He sustained injuries requiring suturing and he has managed to return home to seek his father's assistance to be taken for medical attention. The claimant was given one week medical leave effective from 30 May 1996 until 5 June 1996.

The claimant claims that he forwarded his medical leave certificate to the company through his father on the same day i.e. on 30 May 1996.

The claimant further says that he seeked further treatment to his injuries with the same doctor, and was granted medical leave for another three days effective from 6 June 1996 till 9 June 1996. It is his averment that one Miss Chris from the company called the claimant up by phone enquiring when the claimant could return to work. The claimant replied by saying that he was on further medical leave from 6 June 1996 to 9 June 1996 and he was still seeking treatment for his injuries. The claimant then went to the clinic on 10 June 1996 when the sutures on his tongue was removed. The claimant was given another two days medical leave for 10 June 1996 and 11 June 1996. It is the claimant's averment that he informed the company of his medical leave to Miss Chris. The claimant made a police report of the accident on 18 June 1996.

The claimant denies the claim by the company that he absented himself from work and did not inform the company or attempted to inform the company.

The company on the other hand says that the medical certificate of the claimant was found in the letter tray of the company only on 3 June 1996 and not on 30 May 1996 as claimed by the claimant. On 3 June 1996 when the company received the claimant's medical leave certificate, it directed Miss Christina Chong Mun Choo, (COW2) a junior officer in the personnel department, to call the claimant's house to enquire about the said medical certificate but there was no answer. Miss Christina made telephone calls on 3, 4 and 5 June 1996 but could not get in touch with the claimant.

COW2 then called Dr. Sucha Singh of Angel Clinic, Tanjung Tualang on 3 June 1996 and it was confirmed that the claimant was given medical leave from 30 May 1996 to 5 June 1996.

However the claimant did not call the company to explain his position as to why he was unable to attend to work even after the medical leave expired on 5 June 1996.

It is the company's contention that it had acted with consideration and purview of the employment laws and waited up to 12 June 1996 before sending the claimant the termination letter, based on the provision of s. 15(2) of the Employment Act 1955

It is the company's case that the claimant did not come to work for more than two consecutive days without notifying the company, the relevant period being 6 June 1996 to 11 June 1996. The company admits that the claimant had met with a motor accident. The claimant also admits that he did not submit his medical certificates for the period 6 June 1996 to 11 June 1996. However it is the claimant's contention that he had informed Christina (COW2) on 6 June 1996 that he was still on medical leave. However COW2 denied such telephone communication between her and the claimant on the even date. It is her contention that she made calls on 3, 4 June 1996 and her calls were not answered by anyone in the claimant's premises.

It is important to note that termination letter by the company under s. 15(2) of the Employment Act 1952 is not regarding the claimant's absence from 30 May 1996 to 5 June 1996. It is therefore clear that the company knew of the claimant's motor accident and it also received the claimant's medical certificate for the dates 30 May 1996 to 5 June 1996.

Therefore it becomes the