The dismissal of an employee must be justified by the employer demonstrating just cause, which includes proving misconduct such as unsatisfactory performance and dishonesty.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Dismissal of employee - Claimant dismissed for unsatisfactory performance and dishonesty regarding salary overpayment - Claimant's prolonged absence and failure to improve performance during probation justified dismissal - Court found dismissal was with just cause. (Paras 47-77)

(B) Employment Law - Just cause for dismissal - Employer must prove misconduct for dismissal - Claimant's failure to meet performance standards and dishonesty established. (Paras 47-49)

Facts of the case:
The Claimant was dismissed by the Company on 26 November 2020 after failing to improve her performance during her probationary period, which was extended multiple times due to unsatisfactory attendance and performance. (Paras 1-34)

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Claimant's dismissal was justified based on her unsatisfactory performance, excessive absenteeism, and dishonesty regarding salary overpayment. (Paras 74-76)

Issues: The main issues were whether the dismissal was with just cause and whether the Claimant's conduct warranted termination. (Paras 47-49)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the employer must demonstrate just cause for dismissal, which was established through evidence of the Claimant's poor performance and dishonesty regarding salary retention. (Paras 47-49)

Result: Claimant's case dismissed.

Table of Content
1. claimant dismissed by company (Para 1)
2. claimant's absence and delays (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
3. claimant's contention regarding dismissal (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
4. company's defense against dismissal (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
5. just cause for dismissal established (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75)
6. claimant's case dismissed (Para 76 , 77)

AWARD

Eswary Maree:

Reference

[1] This is a reference under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (1967 Act) by the Honourable Minister of Human Resources, emanates from the dismissal of Baghiyalatchmi Rajasagaran ("the Claimant") by Concentrix CVG Malaysia Sdn Bhd ("the Company") on 26 November 2020.

[2] The Ministerial reference in this case required this Court to hear and determine the Claimant's complaint of dismissal by the Company on 26 November 2020.

Brief History

[3] The Court received the letter pertaining to the Ministerial reference under s 20(3) of the 1967 Act on 30 July 2021.

[4] This matter came up for first mention on 1 October 2021. During the said mention, the Claimant was initially instructed to file her Statement of Case and Bundle of Documents (the said documents) on 25 October 2021. However, she requested for extended time to file the said documents allegedly she just moved out of her rented house and needed time to compile her documents. As such, during the said mention, she was given until 1 November 2021 to file the said documents. The Company was directed to file its Statement In Reply and Bundle of Documents on or before 23 November 2021 and the Rejoinder to be file by the Claimant on or before 1 December 2021. The matter was further fixed for mention on 16 December 2021.

[5] On the mention date of 16 December 2021 the Claimant was absent and failed to file the said documents as directed. Hence, another directions was given during the mention, namely the said documents to be file on or before 7 January 2022, Statement In Reply and Bundle of Documents to be file by the Company on or before 31 January 2022, Rejoinder to be file on or before 15 February 2022. The matter was fixed for hearing on 7 September 2022 and e-mention on 4 April 2022.

[6] On the e-mention date of 4 April 2022, the Claimant was again absent and failed to file the said documents as instructed. Hence, another direction was given during the mention, namely the said documents to be file on or before 26 April 2022, Statement In Reply and Bundle of Documents to be file by the Company on before 24 May 2022, Rejoinder to be file on or before 8 June 2022. Witnesses Statements to be file on or before 8 August 2022. The hearing date fixed on 7 September 2022 was maintained and e-mention was fixed on 29 June 2022.

[7] Despite the extensions of time given to the Claimant, on the mention date of 29 June 2022 she still failed to file the said documents. The Court gave her further extension to file the said documents on or before 20 July 2022, Statement In Reply and Bundle of Documents to be file by the Company on before 10 August 2022, Rejoinder to be file on or before 17 August 2022. Witnesses Statements to be file on or before 24 August 2022. The hearing date fixed on 7 September 2022 was maintained.

[8] On 18 July 2022, the Claimant appointed Malaysian Trades Union Congress's representative to act for her in this matter and the said representative seek extension of time to file the said documents and this Court had allowed the application wherein the said documents were filed on 27 July 2022. The hearing date fixed on 7 September 2022 was eventually vacated at the request of the Company's Solicitors as they need more time to file the Statement In Reply and Bundle of Documents due to the Claimant's delay in filing the said doc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 MarsdenLR 3090

INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPURBAGHIYALATCHMI RAJASAGARAN – AppellantVersusCONCENTRIX CVG MALAYSIA SDN BHD – RespondentAward No: 27 Of 2025 [Case No: 14/42380/21]

The dismissal of an employee must be justified by the employer demonstrating just cause, which includes proving misconduct such as unsatisfactory performance and dishonesty.

Cases Referred (2)

INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
BAGHIYALATCHMI RAJASAGARAN – Appellant
Versus
CONCENTRIX CVG MALAYSIA SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 27 Of 2025 [Case No: 14/42380/21]