Back
2021 MarsdenLR 3095
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
LINI FEINITA MUHAMMAD FEISOL – Appellant
Versus
INDAH WATER KONSORTIUM SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-02(A)-1932-10/2019]
Judicial review of Industrial Court findings is restricted; courts cannot substitute judgments on factual determinations unless there are errors of law or irrationality.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 – Judicial review principles – Judicial review should not disturb findings of fact made by the Industrial Court unless grounded on illegality or irrationality – The Industrial Court determined the appellant's dismissal was without just cause based on insufficient evidence. (Paras 10, 22, 94)
Facts of the case: The appellant was a manager dismissed by the respondent after a domestic inquiry found her guilty of two charges out of seven alleged misconducts. The Industrial Court reinstated her but the High Court quashed this ruling on judicial review. (Paras 1, 5, 8)
Findings of Court: The Industrial Court correctly applied the standard that an employer must prove just cause for dismissal, and due consideration must be given to previous findings of a domestic inquiry. (Paras 21, 92)
Issues: The main issues involved whether the High Court was correct in overriding the Industrial Court’s factual findings and the role of past misconduct in justifying dismissal. (Paras 17, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that judicial review focuses on the legality of the decision-making process, asserting the High Court erred by reassessing the Industrial Court's findings of fact and applying the wrong standards in disregarding the domestic inquiry’s outcome. (Paras 76, 80)
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the Industrial Court’s decision was reinstated. (Para 101)
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal by the appellant/Employee against the High Court's decision on 30 September 2019 in allowing the respondent Company's Judicial Review application to quash the entire decision of the Industrial Court in Award No 3205 of 2018 [[2018] MELRU 3205] dated 17 December 2018 ("the Award"), with costs of RM3,000.00. The decision reinstated the appellant's dismissal from employment with the respondent.
Background Facts
[2] The appellant commenced her employment with the respondent on 1 March 2004 as Manager of Compensation, Benefits & Record (Grade 4) in the Human Resources Department. Thereafter, the appellant was re-designated to the position of Manager of Training & Development effective from 16 July 2007. The appellant continued to be a Manager in the same post until her termination on 13 May 2017.
[3] On 6 January 2017, the respondent sent a show cause letter to the appellant and requested for an explanation for all charges of misconduct levelled against her. On 12 January 2017, the appellant replied the said show cause letter. On 13 March 2017, the respondent issued a Notice of Domestic Inquiry ['DI'] against the appellant. The DI was conducted on 27 March 2017. Seven charges were preferred against the appellant.
[4] The Panel of Domestic Inquiry ('the DI Panel') found the appellant guilty of the 2nd and 3rd charges only. The appellant admitted guilt for the 3rd charge only. Upon considering the decision of the DI Panel that the appellant was also guilty of the 2nd and 3rd charges and the seriousness of all charges as well as the appellant's past record of service, the respondent decided to terminate the appellant's service on 13 May 2017.
[5] The appellant, thereafter, filed a representation under s 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 [' IRA '], which was later been referred to the Industrial Court for adjudication by the Minister on 10 November 2017. After hearing both parties, the Industrial Court on 17 December 2018 handed down the Award in favour of the appellant and held that the respondent had failed to show that the appellant was dismissed with just cause or excuse. The respondent was directed to pay the appellant a sum of RM254,784.00 as back wages as well as for compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
[6] The respondent filed an application for Judicial Review for an order of certiorari to quash the Industrial Award dated 17 December 2018.
[7] On 30 September 2019, the Learned High Court Judge ("the LHCJ") allowed the respondent's application for judicial review to quash the Industrial Court Award dated 17 December 2018 with costs of RM3,000.00 subject to payment of allocatur.
High Court's Decision
[8] The LHCJ's considered view was that the finding made by the Industrial Court ['IC'] was wrong in law and fact. The company she held did give effect to the DI Panel's finding of guilty of two out of the seven charges and in addition to the two charges, took into account the seriousness of all the charges and the appellant's past adverse record of service in deciding the appropriate punishment to be imposed on the appellant.
[9] The LHCJ also found that the fact that the respondent had conducted a DI against the appellant is an entirely irrelevant consideration to the issue whether the appellant had been dismissed without just cause or excuse. The findings of a DI are not binding upon the IC which rehears the matter afresh. However, the IC may take into account the fact that a DI had been held when determining whether the appellant was lawfully dismissed. There was enough evidence before the IC about the appellant's past record of service to justify her dismissal.
[10] The IC failed to consider and disregarded a series of warning letters and a lighter punishment imposed on the appellant earlier and its cumulative effect. Based on the disciplinary actions taken against the appellant, the IC had wrongly concluded that her record had been largely unblemished. The IC had erre
