A dismissal must be supported by just cause, as employers bear the burden of proof in establishing grounds for termination under the Industrial Relations Act.

[1] Mahasan bin Daud ('the claimant') ceased from his erstwhile employment with Nuzul Services Sdn Bhd ('the company') with effect from 1 December 2015. Being aggrieved by the circumstances surrounding this cessation of employment, the claimant made representations on 28 January 2016 to the Director General for Industrial Relations under s 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ('the Act'); and just within the 60 days allowed by s 20(1A) of the Act. The conciliatory efforts undertaken by the office of the Director General proved futile; and pursuant to s 20(2) of the Act, the Honourable Minister of Human Resources, Malaysia was duly notified. Upon receipt of this notification and by virtue of s 20(3) of the Act, the Honourable Minister found it fit to exercise those powers under that section to refer the matter to the Industrial Court of Malaysia. As a consequence, the claimant's initial representations were transformed into a ministerial reference for an Award before this Court. The said ministerial order was dated 28 July 2016; and it was acknowledged by this Court's Registry at Kuala Lumpur on 26 August 2016.

The Matrix:

[2] The claimant commenced employment with the company in the position of 'Operational General Manager' with effect from 2 July 2014 at a monthly basic salary of RM1,000.00, plus an allowance of RM1,400.00 (making it a total remuneration package of: RM2,400.00 per month) and was subject to a probationary period of three to six months from the date thereof [see cls 1.1.1 & 1.3.1 of the following documentary exhibit; exact copy below]:

[3] By way of a letter dated 1 January 2015, the claimant was confimed in the above said position [see exhibit reproduced as follows, in its original language]:

[4] The claimant then continued briefly in his employment with the company until he received a missive dated 30 October 2015 and reproduced in facsimile below, which ended his rather short-lived association with the company [see exhibit as copied herein below]:

[5] The claimant now comes before this Court with a plea to have it declared that his dismissal from employment was without just cause or excuse, motivated by mala fides and contrary to the principles of equity, good conscience and natural justice and/or was an unfair labour practice and/or unlawful. He prayed to be reinstated to his former position without loss of seniority, wages or benefits, monetary or otherwise, together with arrears of salary and/or any other alternative relief as this Court may deem fit and just.

[6] The company, on the other hand, has denied the claimant's allegations and contends instead that it was entirely within its rights in taking the action that it did. It prayed that the claimant's claim herein be dismissed forthwith.

The Issue:

[7] The sole issue before this Court was whether the company's action in dismissing the claimant was shielded by just cause or excuse.

The General Principles

[8] When dealing with a reference under s 20 of the Act, the first thing that the Industrial Court has to consider is the question of whether there was, in fact, a dismissal. If this question is answered in the affirmative, it must only then go on to consider if the said dismissal was with or without just cause or excuse. Reference is drawn to the case of Wong Chee Hong v. Cathay Organisation Malaysia Sdn Bhd , [1988] 1 MLJ 92 (of the then Supreme Court of Malaysia