The dismissal of an employee must be justified with clear evidence of misconduct; failure to prove allegations results in reinstatement or compensation.

By a Reference dated 28^th August, 2006 the Honourable Minister of Human Resources has referred the representations of Peter ak. Anjat, Runsor ak. Ganing and Jeffery ak. Anjat (hereinafter referred to as "1^st Claimant, 2^nd Claimant and 3^rd Claimant" respectively) concerning their dismissals from their employment by their former employer Genesis Force Sdn. Bhd. (hereinafter called the "Respondent/Company") on 11^th May, 2005 to this Court for an award pursuant to Section 20 (3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 .

2. The Pleadings

The 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd Claimants herein have together filed their statement of case through the firms of Messrs. Ranbir S. Singh & Co., Advocates & Solicitors of Miri. wherein they claim for reinstatement into their former employment without any loss of wages, allowances, service seniority, privileges or benefits and/or other alternative relief deemed fit and proper by the Court. They all claim that their dismissals herein were without just cause or excuse and in breach of the principles of natural justice and/or unfair labour practice.

The Respondent in a very brief reply filed by its firm Messrs. Ee & Lim, Advocates of Kuching, denies the allegations of the Claimants and contends that the Claimants were justly and fairly dismissed for serious misconduct.

The trial before this Court in Sibu saw the Company calling 3 witnesses, and the 3 Claimants offering themselves as witnesses for their own cases.

3. Dismissals summary & immediate

The dismissal of the 3 Claimants by the Respondent on 11^th May, 2005 was swift. There were no show cause letters issued to them and no domestic inquiry was conducted. The Respondent felt that their misconduct was so serious that it warranted immediate summary dismissal. It is of course trite law that an employer has the right to summarily dismiss an employee on grounds of serious misconduct. It is also trite law that the prerogative to dismiss an employee is a prerogative of the employer and if properly exercised, the Court will not interfere with its exercise.

4. Facts leading to the dismissals

The Company operated a coal mine in Mukah. The 1^st Claimant Peter ak. Anjat was the public relations officer of the Company at the site. The 2^nd Claimant Runsor ak. Ganing was the assistant public relations officer. The 3^rd Claimant Jeffery ak. Anjat was an assistant site supervisor. All of them worked at the site and are related to one another. The 1^st and 3^rd Claimants are brothers while the 2^nd Claimant is their cousin.

The Company mined the Iban lands in the area and there were incidents of blockades by the landowners in the past.

On 6^th May, 2005 certain incidents which will be adverted to below allegedly took place at the site which led the Company to dismiss these 3 Claimants on the 11^th May, 2005. These purported incidents are referred to in the letters of termination issued to the Claimants and are used as grounds for terminating their employment. It would be convenient to reproduce the 3 letters herein.

Letter of termination - 1^st Claimant Peter ak Anjat

Letter of termination - 2^nd Claimant Runsor ak Ganing

Letter of termination - 3^rd Claimant Jeffery ak Anjat

5. Grounds for dismissals

Looking at these grounds for the dismissals of the 3 Claimants, it can be seen that they are all common grounds to all 3 Claimants, except for ground no. 4, that is, absence from work. In respect of this particular ground, the 1^st Claimant (Peter ak Anjat) as well as the 2^nd Claimant (Runsor ak Ganing) , the Company had alleged that these two Claimants were absent from work on "9^th May, 2005 to date" (that would mean the date of the termination letter 11^th May, 2005). In respect of the 3^rd Claimant (Jeffery ak Anjat) , however, the allegation is that he was absent from work from 6^th May, 2005 to 7^th May, 2005 .

In Goo