The Industrial Court can only adjudicate on the reasons for dismissal as stated at the time of termination and cannot consider subsequently introduced justifications.

Nallini Pathmanathan FCJ:

Introduction

[2] This issue is of significance as it touches on the scope and ambit of:

(a) The Industrial Court's powers and jurisdiction under s 20; and

(b) A workman's right to be heard in relation to the reasons made known to him as warranting his dismissal at the time of such dismissal.

[3] The following questions were referred to us:

(a) Whether the Industrial Court has the right to enquire into reasons subsequently put up by the employer via pleading to justify the dismissal, even if such reasons were not given at the time of the dismissal.

(b) Whether the Federal Court decision in Goon Kwee Phoy v. J & P Coats (M) Bhd, 1981 MarsdenLR 117 is authority for the proposition that the employer is bound only by the reasons of dismissal stated in the letter of termination.

[4] On 22 June 2021 we dismissed the appeal by the employer seeking to rely on post-dismissal matters which were raised for the first time before the Industrial Court. In dismissing the appeal we indicated that we were guided by the rationale behind the Act and the principles of natural justice. We now give our full reasons for reaching that conclusion.

Background

[5] In the instant appeal, the appellant, Maritime Intelligence Sdn Bhd is the employer, who for ease of reference will be referred to as the Company in the rest of this judgment. The workman, Tan Ah Gek aka Jenny will be referred to as 'Jenny'.

[6] The company owns an educational institution named the Netherlands Maritime Institute of Technology ('the institute'), where the workman commenced employment on 17 March 2014 as the Vice President - Services & Registrar ('VPSR').

[7] At her pre-employment interview which was conducted by a panel comprising the President of the institute and several directors of the company, the workman made available all her certificates and qualifications including the impugned qualification relating to Newport University. At the time Jenny was not queried on the qualification nor its accreditation in Malaysia. In short her qualifications were accepted as fully disclosed by the workman. Subsequently throughout the course of her employment, no one in the organisation queried her on this issue either.

[8] The complaints leading up to her dismissal arose as a consequence of a petition signed by more than half of the employees of the company, alleging that Jenny had abused her power and conducted herself unethically and unprofessionally. The petition was submitted to one Dr Mohd Farhan, a director and shareholder of the company sometime in mid-November 2014. He requested Professor Malek, the President and CEO of the institute to investigate and report on the allegations.

[9] Professor Malek, who was a personal friend of the workman and had recommended her to the position at the institute, did not conduct an investigation. Instead, he recommended taking action against four employees who were believed to have initiated the petition on the basis of their purported poor performance.

[10] The company then appointed an independent person to investigate the petition, one Haji Arip, a retired director from the labour department (COW- 6). Based on Haji Arip's investigation and report, the company was convinced that the workman had committed misconduct and issued a show cause letter o