Dismissal for misconduct is justified when proven on balance of probabilities, particularly for violence that undermines workplace discipline and safety.

A. Reference

[1] This is a reference from The Honourable Minister of Human Resources, Malaysia to the Industrial Court of Malaysia under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("the IRA ") in respect of the dismissal of Thanakody a/l. Renganathan ("the Claimant") by his employer, Kuala Lumpur Kepong Berhad ("the Company") on 17 December 2019.

B. Background

[2] The case was initially tried by me as the Chairman of Court 11, Industrial Court of Malaysia. I ceased to serve as the Chairman of Court 11, effective 16 January 2023. I was subsequently requested to continue hearing this case after being re-appointed as the Chairman of Court 15, effective 1 June 2023 and to conclude it.

[3] Together with the Claimant, there were four (4) other individuals who were also referred by the Honourable Minister to the Industrial Court on 5 July 2020 but under separate individual references namely Tamil Selvam a/l. Sugumaran, Lingehswaran a/l. Saravanapava, Inthiran a/l. Bathumalai and Visu a/l. Raghavan.

[4] They were also employees of the Company and were dismissed on 17 December 2019 for the same or substantially similar reasons, arising from an incident that occurred on 8 September 2019 at about 8.00 pm., during which they were alleged to have participated in a riot and assaulted a foreign worker by the name of Sirajuddin Sah ('Siraju ddin") at one of the houses within the Company's quarters.

[5] Notwithstanding that all the abovenamed claimants were dismissed for the same or substantially similar reasons arising from a common incident, their disputes were referred to the Industrial Court separately and registered under different case numbers as set out below:

(a) Case No.: 15(11)/4-858/20 - Thanakody a/l. Renganathan

(b) Case No.: 15(11)/4-859/20 - Tamil Selvam a/l. Sugumaran

(c) Case No.: 15(11)/4-860/20 - Lingehswaran a/l. Saravanapava

(d) Case No.: 15(11)/4-861/20 - Inthiran a/l. Bathumalai

(e) Case No.: 15(11)/4-862/20 - Visu a/l. Raghavan

[6] When the cases were called up for hearing, parties had request for their cases to be heard together. For e xpediency's sake, the Court had agreed for all five (5) cases to be heard together since the facts were identical and the issues to be tried were also similar. However, the Court shall hand down separate awards for each case.

C. The Proceedings

[7] The Claimant was dismissed by the Company for misconduct. The Company alleged that the Claimant had been involved in rioting and in assaulting a foreign worker at a house in the Company's quarters, and that he was absent from work on 10 September 2019 and 11 September 2019 without the Company's permission or approval.

[8] The Company commenced the case by calling