Back
2024 MarsdenLR 1639
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
LOGANATHAN SIVAPRAGASAM – Appellant
Versus
WESTPORTS MALAYSIA SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 906 Of 2024 [Case No: 5/4-318/22]
The court upheld the dismissal of the Claimant, finding it justified due to health issues affecting job performance, affirming the burden of proof lies with the employer to demonstrate just cause.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 – Section 20(3) – Dismissal – Claimant alleged dismissal without just cause or excuse – Court must determine if dismissal was justified based on evidence presented – Burden of proof lies with the Company to show dismissal was with just cause. (Paras 8, 10, 18, 20)
(B) Employment Contract – Termination on medical grounds – Claimant's health issues led to termination – Company provided evidence of Claimant's inability to perform duties due to health – Court found termination was justified under principles of natural justice. (Paras 12, 18, 30)
Facts of the case: Claimant employed as Technical Service Executive since 2010, dismissed on 31 December 2020 due to health issues affecting performance. Claimant received ex-gratia payment of RM78,349.97 upon termination. (Paras 5, 6, 7)
Findings of Court: Court found that the Company had discharged its burden of proof that the Claimant's termination was with just cause based on medical assessments and evidence of health issues. (Paras 32)
Issues: Whether the Claimant was dismissed with or without just cause; whether the Company's reasons for dismissal were substantiated. (Paras 17)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Company had justified the dismissal based on the Claimant's medical condition and inability to fulfill job responsibilities, adhering to the principles of natural justice and equity. (Paras 32)
Result: Claimant's dismissal was upheld as lawful.
AWARD
Reference
[1] This is a reference made under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("The Act") arising out of the alleged dismissal of Loganathan A/L Sivapragasam ("Claimant") by Westports Malaysia Sdn Bhd ("Company") on the 31 December 2020.
[2] The Director General's reference in this case required the court to hear and determine the Claimant's complaint of dismissal by the Company on 31 December 2020.
[3] This court considered the notes of proceedings, documents and cause papers in handing down this Award namely:
(i) Statement of Case dated 11 April 2022
(ii) Statement in Reply dated 20 October 2022
(iii) Rejoinder dated 22 November 2022
(iv) Claimant's Bundle of Documents - CLB1, CLB2, CLB3
(v) Company's Bundle of Documents - COB1, COB2, COB3, COB4
(vi) Claimant's Witness Statement - CLW1S (Loganathan A/L Sivapragasam)
(vii) Company's Witness Statement - COW1S (Dr T Meena Kumar), COW2S (G.Ravindran A/L Gunasekaran)
(viii) Claimant's Written Submission and Reply
(ix) Company's Written Submission and Reply
(x) Claimant's Bundle of Authorities
(xi) Company's Bundle of A uthorities
Background
[4] The dispute before this court is the claim by the Claimant that he had been dismissed from his employment without just cause or excuse by the Company on 31 December 2020.
[5] The Claimant was employed by the Company as a Technical Service Executive on 15 November 2010.
[6] The Claimant's last drawn salary was RM6,100.00.
[7] On 3 December 2020, the Company issued a termination letter effective on 31 December 2020. The Claimant was paid an ex-gratia payment of RM78,349.97.
The Duty Of The Industrial court
[8] The Supreme court in the case of Wong Chee Hong v. Cathay Organisation Malaysia Sdn Bhd , [1988] 1 MLJ 92 held that:
"When the Industrial court is dealing with a reference under s 20, the first thing that the court will have to do is to ask itself a question whether there was a dismissal, and if so, whether it was with or without just cause or excuse."
[9] The Federal court in the case of Goon Kwee Phoy v. J & P Coats (M) Bhd, held that:
"Where representations are made and are referred to the Industrial court for enquiry, it is the duty of that court to determine whether the termination or dismissal is with or without just cause or excuse. If the employer chooses to give a reason for the action taken by him, the duty of the Industrial court will be to enquire whether that excuse or reason has or has not been made out. If it finds as a fact that it has not been proved, then the inevitable conclusion must be that the termination or dismissal was without just cause or excuse"
The Burden Of Proof
[10] The High court in the case of Weltex Knitwear Industries Sdn Bhd v. Law Kar Toy & Anor, held that:
"The law is clear that if the fact of dismissal is not in dispute, the burden is on the company to satisfy the court that such dismissal was done with just cause or excuse. This is because, by the 1967 Act, all dismissal is prima facie done without just cause or excuse. Therefore, if an employer asserts otherwise the burden is on him to discharge"
The Standard Of Proof
[11] In the case of Telekom Malaysia Kawasan Utara v. Krishnan Kutty Sanguni Nair & Anor, , the court laid down the principle that the standard of proof that is required is one that is on the balance of probabilities.
"Thus in hearing a claim of unjust dismissal, where the employee was dismissed on the basis of an alleged criminal offence such as theft of company property, the Industrial court is not required to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that such an offence was committed.
The standard of proof applicable is the civil standard, ie, proof on a balance of probabilities which is flexible so that the degree of probability required is proportionate to the nature and gravity of the issue"
Claimant's Case
[12] The termination of the Claimant's contract of employment is contrary to the principle of natural justice, equity, good conscience and amounts to an unfair labou
