Back
2024 MarsdenLR 725
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
MOHD MOKHTAR TUKSU – Appellant
Versus
MALAYSIA AIRPORTS HOLDINGS BERHAD – Respondent
Award No: 1567 Of 2024 [Case No: 17/4-760/21]
The employer bears the burden to prove just cause for dismissal; failure to do so results in an unjustified termination, necessitating compensation.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Dismissal for misconduct - Claimant dismissed for alleged misuse of medical benefits and failure to be contactable during suspension - Court finds dismissal without just cause or excuse, given the lack of compelling evidence and procedural irregularities during the Domestic Inquiry. (Paras 64, 68)
(B) Burden of Proof - The employer must prove misconduct on a balance of probabilities; failure to do so renders dismissal unjustified. (Paras 14, 16)
(C) Proportionality of Punishment - Dismissal deemed too harsh; lesser disciplinary actions should have been considered. (Paras 51-62)
Facts of the case:
Claimant was dismissed for alleged medical benefits abuse and failure to comply with contact instructions during suspension. The Court found procedural breaches in the Domestic Inquiry and insufficient evidence supporting the dismissal. (Paras 9, 12, 19)
Findings of Court:
The Company failed to establish the dismissal was with just cause or excuse; the Claimant was awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. (Paras 64, 73)
Issues: The main issues were whether the dismissal was justified and whether the Domestic Inquiry was conducted fairly. (Paras 21, 46)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the burden of proof lies with the employer, and a dismissal without just cause or excuse is invalid. The procedural fairness of the Domestic Inquiry was also questioned. (Paras 12, 64)
Result: The dismissal was declared invalid; the Claimant awarded RM69,203.68 as compensation. (Paras 73)
AWARD
A. Reference
[1] This is a reference by the Honourable Minister of Human Resources under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("the IRA 1967") arising out of the dismissal of Mohd Mokhtar Bin Tuksu (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") by Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad (herein referred to as "the Company").
B. Preface
[2] This Ministerial reference required this Court to hear and determine the Claimant's complaint of dismissal by the Company with effect from 23 July 2020. The Claimant commenced his employment with the Company as Aviation Security Assistant on 1 June 2006.
[3] This present case relates specifically on the alleged medical benefit abuse by the employees of the Company including by the Claimant. Beginning February 2020 until April 2020, the Company had conducted an analysis of medical claims data for the year 2019 and discovered that the claims for medical expenses of employees based in Kota Kinabalu International Airport ("KKIA") were the highest in Malaysia.
[4] By a letter dated 14 May 2020, the Company issued a Show Cause Letter to the Claimant. After reviewing the Claimant's reply to show cause letter dated 20 May 2020, the Company decided to conduct a Domestic Inquiry in order to provide the Claimant an opportunity to put forward his defence before an independent Panel of Inquiry.
[5] The Company issued a Notice of Domestic Inquiry dated 29 June 2020 to the Claimant to answer to the ("1st Charge"):
"Anda didapati telah menyalahgunakan faedah rawatan dan perubatan Syarikat di mana jumlah lawatan serta kos rawatan perubatan "General Physician" (GP) bagi diri anda dan tanggungan anda adalah tidak munasabah seperti dalam Larmpiran A dan Lampiran B serta jadual di bawah:
Perbuatan anda menyebabkan pihak Syarikat mengalami kerugian kerana menanggung kos rawatan dan perubatan yang tinggi dan menyebabkan Syarikat hilang kepercayaan ke atas integriti anda sebagai seorang kakitangan".
[6] The Company issued another Notice on additional charge dated 3 July 2020 against the Claimant to answer to the additional charge ("2nd Charge") as follows:
"Dari 30 Jun hingga 3 Julai 2020, anda didapati telah gagal dihubungi oleh pihak Syarikat untuk hadir ke tempat kerja untuk mengambil Notis Siasatan Dalaman bertarikh 29 Jun 2020 seperti yang diarahkan. Kegagalan anda untuk memastikan anda sentiasa dapat dihubungi oleh Syarikat dalam tempoh penggantungan kerja ini bertentangan dengan arahan Syarikat seperti di dalam surat penggantungan kerja bertarikh 14 Mei 2020. Tindakan anda dianggap sebagai ingkar arahan Syarikat yang menyebabkan Syarikat hilang keyakinan ke atas anda sebagai seorang kakitangan."
[7] The Claimant attended the Domestic Inquiry on 15 July 2020 and pleaded not guilty to the charges. After the conclusion of the Domestic Inquiry, the panel of Domestic Inquiry found the Claimant "Guilty" to the charge of misusing the Company's medical benefit as well as to the additional charge of "uncontactable during the period of his suspension".
[8] The Company decided to terminate the Claimant's employment with immediate effect vide a Letter of Dismissal dated 23 July 2020 which inter alia stated that "Berdasarkan bukti-bukti dan dokumen-dokumen yang dikemukakan semasa sesi Siasatan Dalaman, pihak Syarikat dengan ini mendapati anda BERSALAH ke atas kesalahan seperti tertera di dalam Notis Siasatan Dalaman bertarikh 29 Jun 2020 dan Surat Pertuduhan Tambahan bertarikh 3 Julai 2020. Setelah pertimbanagn teliti, pihak Syarikat dengan ini berkeputusan untuk menamatkan perkhidmatan anda berkuatkuasa 23 Julai 2020".
[9] The Claimant submits that he was unlawfully terminated and that his dismissal by the Company was without just cause or excuse.
[10] The Company however states that the termination of the Claimant employment was lawful with just cause or excuse. The Company prays for the punishment of dismissal to be upheld and the Claimant's claim to be dismissed.
C. Witnesses
[11] There were seven (6) witnesses
