Dismissal without just cause or excuse due to procedural irregularities and failure to adhere to principles of natural justice was established, leading to claimant's reinstatement.

[3] On 18 April 2010 the claimant received an e-mail from the e-mail address of nutemalaysia@gmail.com. (NM e-mail) via his e-mail account provided by the company. The e-mail as at pp 316-318 of CLB2 and is produced as at pp 13-15 of this Award.

[4] On 19 April 2010, the claimant forwarded the NM e-mail to other employees of the company including the SUTE exco. He forwarded the NM e-mail together with his own e-mail (the claimant's e-mail, ie p 316 of CLB2) [p 13 of this Award].

[5] By letter dated 22 April 2010 (p 35 of COB1) the company suspended the claimant from work for 14 days with half pay on the ground that he has allegedly committed a major misconduct. By another letter dated 5 May 2010 (p 52 of COB1) the company extended the suspension with full pay until the investigation is completed.

[6] The company issued a show cause letter dated 26 April 2010 (pp 41-44 of COB1) to the claimant to show cause as to why disciplinary Act ion should not be taken against him for five charges under the company's Code of Business Ethics.

[7] The claimant replied to the show cause letter by a letter dated 30 April 2010 (pp 46-51 of COB1).

[8] By a letter dated 14 May 2010 (pp 54-58 of COB1) the company increased the charges against the claimant from five to nine charges where two charges under art 17.2 of 4th collective agreement TM and SUTE, and five charges under the company's Code of Business Ethics.

[9] By a letter dated 27 May 2010 (pp 59-63 of COB1) the company requires the claimant to attend domestic inquiry (DI) on 15 June 2010 - 16 June 2010. In this letter only six charges are preferred against the claimant.

[10] The company decided to terminate the service of the claimant with immediate effect and he was informed via its letter dated 2 August 2010 (pp 64- 69 of COB1). The claimant appealed against the decision to the Jawatankuasa Rayuan Tatatertib vide his letter dated 5 August 2010 (pp 67-68 of COB1). However his appeal was dismissed and he was informed of the decision by the company via its letter dated 18 April 2010 (pp 69-71of COB1).

[11] In his statements of case (SOC) he avers that he had been unfairly dismissed without just cause and excuse whilst the company in its statement in reply denies the claimant's claim.

Witnesses

[12] The following witnesses for the company testified at the hearing of the present case:

(a) Ahmad Rozian bin Othman(COW1)

(b) Ismail bin Ishak (COW2)

(c) Jamaludin bin Abd Jalil (COW3)

(d) Mohd Japar bin Abd Majid (COW4)

(e) Jamling bin Ghani (COW5)

(f) Khairul Zaki bin Mohamed (COW6)

(g) Mohd Khalis Abdul Rahim (COW7)

(h) Edrus @ Francis bin Kunti (COW8)

[13] The following witnesses for the claimant testified at hearing of the present case:

(a) DK Ribut binti Ku Mohd Tajudin (CLW1)

(b) Amran bin Ambodai (the claimant) (CLW2)

Witness Statements

[14] The witness statements of the witnesses were marked as follows:

(a) Witness statement of Ahmad Rozian bin Othman - "WSCOW1"

(b) Witness statement of Ismail bin Ishak - "WSCOW2"

(c) Witness statement of Jamaludin bin Abd Jalil - "WSCOW3"

(d) Witness statement of Mohd Japar bin Abd Majid - "WSCOW4"

(e) Witness statement of Jamling bin Ghani - "WSCOW5"

(f) Witness statement of Khairul Zaki bin Mohamed - "WSCOW6"

(g) Witness statement of Mohd Khalis Abdul Rahim - "WSCOW7"

(h) Witness statement of Edrus @ Francis bin Kunti - "WSCOW8"

(i) Witness statement of Amran bin Ambodai - "WSCLW2"

Document

[15] Before the trial begun, the parties informed me that all the documents in both bundles of documents are agreed documents as to its existence and authenticity but the parties are at liberty to cross-examine the content. However before the trial on 29 April 2013 ended the parties informed me that they agreed that the documents in all the bundles o