Back
2013 MarsdenLR 1152
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
SARAVANAN KALIAPPAN – Appellant
Versus
YEMAJAYA INDUSTRIES SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 1789 of 2013 [Case No: 4/4-974/12 ]
The absence of the employer at hearings and failure to rebut the Claimant's evidence led to the conclusion that the dismissal was without just cause, establishing the employer's burden of proof.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) and Section 30(5) - Dismissal claim - Claimant was employed as a Purchasing Officer and dismissed on 9 October 2009; failed to rebut evidence presented by Claimant regarding dismissal - Court finds dismissal without just cause or excuse. (Paras 2, 4, 6, 8)
(B) Burden of proof - The Company bears the burden to establish that the dismissal was justified; failure to present witnesses or respond to Claimant's letters indicates inability to discharge this burden. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The Claimant argued he was ordered to leave by the MD during an emergency leave due to his child's illness, and subsequently received no response to his requests for explanation from the Company.
Findings of Court:
The Claimant dismissed without just cause; an award of RM13,600.00 as compensation is ordered.
Issues: The main issues were if the Claimant was dismissed and if so, whether it was with just cause.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that absence of defense from the Company and burden of proof considerations led to the decision that dismissal lacked just cause.
Result: Compensation of RM13,600.00 awarded to Claimant.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. identification of parties and procedural background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. claimant's employment details and termination. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. determining the validity of dismissal. (Para 6 , 7) |
[1] The parties to the dispute are Saravanan a/l Kaliappan ("the Claimant") and Yemajaya Industries Sdn. Bhd ("the Respondent") (the Company). The dispute which has been referred to the Industrial Court by way of a Ministerial Reference under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("the Act") is over the dismissal of the Claimant by the Company on 9 July 2012.
Introduction
[2] Based upon the Court's records, the Company's representative was absent on the mention dates of 28 August 2012; 29 October 2012; 21 November 2012; 30 January 2013; 29 March 2013; 17 April 2013 despite repeated reminders. The Claimant had filed his Statement of Case but the Company failed to file its Statement in Reply despite being directed to do so. At the hearing date on 23 May 2013 the Company's representative was again absent eventhough the notice of hearing was sent to the Company. In the circumstances Counsel for the Claimant requested that the hearing on 25 March 2012 be heard exparte pursuant to s 29(d) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 .
[3] The Court agreed with the Claimant Counsel's request and the case was heard ex-parte. Since there was no company witnesses present the Court proceeded with the Claimant's case.
Brief Background Facts
[4] The Claimant was employed by the Company as a Purchasing Officer on 27 May 2009. His last drawn salary at the time of dismissal was RM3,300.00 per month and fixed allowance of RM100.00 per month.
[5] The Claimant had pleaded in his Statement of Case that he was terminated by the Company on 9 October 2009.
Issues
[6] The issues for determination are:-
(a) Whether the claimant was dismissed by the Company;
(b) If so, whether the dismissal of the Claimant by the Company was with just cause or excuse.
[7] Let me now deal with the issues:-
