The claimant was employed by the company as chief security officer by letter of appointment dated 30 December 1993. The claimant's initial salary was RM800 a month commencing from January 1994.

Under the terms and conditions of the contract of employment, the claimant was required to under go a probationary period of six months.

On 4 August 1994 the claimant's service was terminated by the company for the following reasons:

1) That the claimant on 4 August 1994 at or about 8.35a.m. talked to his officer in a uncouth manner and clenched his fist at him.

2) That notwithstanding repeated advise from his superiors, the claimant continued to behave in an aggressive manner and

3) That the claimant threw challenges at his superior and abused him to suffer humiliation and embarrassment.

The claimant avers that he was not given any opportunity by the company to be heard on the charges made against him and in the premise the company had acted in breach of the rules of natural justice. It is the claimant's averment that he had been dismissed without just cause and excuse.

It is the company's argument that the claimant was ant confirmed in his employment as chief security officer as no letter of confirmation was issued to him. On 4 August 1994 when the human resources officer Md. Sabri bin Hussein (COW1) questioned the claimant as to the presence of a stranger in the guard house, the claimant hurled abusive/vulgar words against COW1 in the presence of other subordinates COW1 testified that the claimant threatened him with violence by showing his fist towards his face.

Encik Mohamad Sani Raj bin Abdullah (COW2) in his evidence testified that the claimant is a friend of his and related whatever he saw and heard on 4 August 1994. He confirmed seeing and hearing the claimant shouting abusive words at COW1.

COW2 said that COW1 was seated at his desk when the incident took place. Though COW2 pulled the claimant away from COW1's office, the claimant went back to COW1's seat and continued to repeat the offensive words, thumped COW1's table and pointed his fist at COW1's face.

It is COW2's evidence that throughout this episode COW1 did not say anything except by saying "what do you want from me". He then said COW1 writing on a book when the claimant was hurling abuses at him. By then a crowd had gathered around COW1's office witnessing the incident.

COW2 also admitted in cross examination that he was the one who recommended the claimant for the job.

The claimant's representative Mr. Veeriah admits that on 4 August 1994 at about 8.35a.m. there was a stranger in the company's guard house. He also says that COW1 had asked the claimant about the presence of the stranger in the guard house. The problem started when COW1 told the claimant "Simple procedure also you can't follow".

Mr. Veeriah submits that the claimant could not have used the indecent, vulgar four-letter words. It is his argument that while the incident took place COW1 recorded whatever the claimant had uttered in his diary (CO2). However the diary (CO2) would show that the claimant had used vulgar four-letter words and not as stated by COW1 in Court. It is his submission that COW1 did not write down in his diary that the claimant was thumping on the table. It is his submission that there are contradictions in the evidence of COW1 and COW2 and therefore their evidence must be scrutinised with care.

From the submission of both parties this Court comes to the conclusion that there was an incident that took place in COW1's room. It is also true that the claimant used the indecent, abusive four-letter words to COW1. There is also no dispute that the claimant thumped COW1's table and pointed his fist at him. This amounted to assault.

It is therefore for this Court to determine whether the claimant's behaviour amounted to a threat and if it is so, then whether such threat amounted to misconduct that would warrant dismissal.

The claimant is the chief security officer of the company. Being the chief, it is this

Click Here to Read the rest of this document