Back
2012 MarsdenLR 620
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
SEELAN MANIAM – Appellant
Versus
MOX GASES SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 312 of 2012 [Case No: 13/4-1997/2007]
Dismissal without just cause requires clear evidence from the employer; failure to provide substantial proof leads to findings of unjust termination.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Dismissal of employee for alleged misconduct - Burden of proof rests on the employer to prove dismissal was with just cause or excuse - The court held that the evidence presented failed to substantiate the claims against the claimant, resulting in a finding that dismissal was without just cause. (Paras 17, 30, 32)
(B) The court distinguished the importance of direct evidence and the burden of proof relating to dismissal cases, emphasizing the necessity for clear evidence to support claims of misconduct. (Paras 18, 22)
Facts of the case:
The claimant was dismissed by the respondent for allegedly throwing a bag over the company's fence. The court found the dismissal lacking justification due to insufficient evidence, noting discrepancies in witness testimonies and lack of substantial proof from the employer.
Findings of Court:
The dismissal was ruled without just cause or excuse, and the claimant was entitled to back wages and compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
Issues: Whether the dismissal was justified based on alleged misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for clear evidence to support allegations of misconduct; since the employer failed to prove the misconduct, the dismissal was ruled unjust.
Result: The claimant's case was allowed, and the respondent was ordered to pay compensation and back wages.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claimant's employment details and grounds for dismissal. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. facts leading to claim for wrongful dismissal. (Para 7) |
| 3. claimant's assertions against dismissal validity. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. witness testimonies regarding the alleged misconduct. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. claimant's stance on dismissal being unjust. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. burden of proof and court's function in examining dismissal. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. court's findings on evidence and claimant's defense. (Para 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 30 , 31) |
| 8. role of evidence in justifying dismissal. (Para 23) |
| 9. evaluation of employer's basis for dismissal. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 10. insufficiency of evidence supporting dismissal. (Para 29) |
| 11. court's order for compensation and remuneration. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
[1] This is a reference by the Honourable Minister of Human Resource under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 , on 22 August 2007 arising out of the dismissal of Seelan a/l Maniam (the "claimant") on 3 May 2007 by Mox Gases Sdn Bhd (the "respondent").
[2] The hearing of this case commenced on 30 September 2009 and was completed on 3 May 2011. The claimant's Written Submissions was filed by Messrs Kanesalingam & Co, on 2 June 2011 and Submissions In Reply on 19 January 2012. The respondent's Written Submissions was filed by Messrs Shearn Delamore & Co, on 13 July 2011.
[3] On 21 June 2010, the claimant made an oral application that the respondent be ordered to produce the Domestic Inquiry minutes. Vide Award No 845 of 2010 dated 24 June 2010, the court finds it undesirable to order the respondent to produce the Domestic Inquiry minutes and accordingly dismissed the claimant's application.
Brief Facts
[4] According to Kenneth Par the respondent's Employment Services Manager Human Resources Department as reflected in CLB, p 33 confirms that the claimant was working as a Tester based in Petaling Jaya and stated that the claimant joined MOX Gases Sdn Bhd since 19 September 1994 until 3 May 2007. The claimant was paid a monthly salary of RM1,528.00 at the time of his termination of employment.
[5] The claimant was issued a Letter of Suspension dated 27 February 2007 (COB1, p 1) signed by the respondent's Employee Relations Manager, Human Resource Department John a/l Doraisamy whereby the claimant was suspended from work with half pay for a period of two (2) weeks with effect from 27 February 2007 till 12 March 2007.
[6] The claimant was issued a Show Cause Letter dated 7 March 2007 (COB1, p 2) by the respondent's Employee Relations Manager, Human Resource Department John a/l Doraisamy and the claimant was suspended from 13 to 31 March 2007 with full pay as follows:
"Surat Tunjuk Sebab
Surat Syarikat GMHR/ER/JD/07/056 bertarikh 27 Februari 2007 adalah dirujuk.
Berdasarkan kepada laporan dan siasatan yang telah dijalankan, anda dituduh melakukan kesalahan-kesalahan seperti berikut:
1. Pada 22 Februari 2007 di antara jam 4 petang ke 5 petang, anda didapati telah melontar ke luar pagar syarikat satu (1) bungkusan bag dari dalam kawasan Syarikat berhampiran "Testshop 2" di mana anda bekerja;
2. Pada 22 Februari 2007 di antara jam 5 petang ke 5.30 petang, anda didapati telah memberhentikan motosikal anda berhampiran Jalan 225, dan telah mengambil satu (1) bungkusan bag yang telah anda lontarkan di tapak yang sama, kemudian memasukkan bungkusan tersebut ke dalam bakul motosikal anda lalu beredar;
3. Pada 27 Februari 2007 antara jam 1.30 petang ke 2 petang, apabila surat penggantung kerja dikemukakan terhadap anda di "Bilik Mesyuarat Teknikal", anda enggan menandatangani sesalinan surat tersebut sebagai akaun penerimaan walaupun setelah dinasihatkan oleh En Jacob George, En Asokumal Danodaran dan En Selvam a/l Pachiappan;
4. Pada 27 Februari 2007 antara jam 2 petang ke 2.30 petang, setelah anda digantung kerja dan diiringi oleh En Asokumal Danodaran, En Jacob George, En Mohd Nazali Bin Ismail dan En Mohamad Jaddi Bin Tambi ke bilik gerobok
