The court upheld the dismissal of an employee for serious misconduct involving a workplace fight, reinforcing the principle that such behavior disrupts workplace discipline and is not justified by provocation.

[1] This is a Ministerial reference to the Industrial Court under s. 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 made on 24 August 2005 for an award in respect of the dismissal of Uthiya Kumar s/o Subramaniam ("the claimant") by Nippon Express (M) Sdn. Bhd. ("the company").

Brief Facts

[2] The claimant worked as an Operations Clerk. On 26 September 2003 at about 12.30pm the claimant was involved in a fight with another employee one Shamsuri Aman. In course of the fight, the claimant threw a plastic tray at the said Shamsuri which, unfortunately, struck another employee. The said employee was knocked unconscious and had to be taken to the hospital immediately. On 29 September 2003 the claimant was issued with a suspension letter cum show cause letter. The claimant admitted being involved in a fight but stated that he was provoked into it by the abusive words of Shamsuri. On 22 October 2003 the claimant attended a domestic inquiry. At the domestic inquiry, the claimant pleaded guilty to the charge of fighting at the work place. The company took the view that fighting at the workplace was a serious offence and on 3 November 2003, the claimant was dismissed.

Whether The Claimant Is Guilty Of Misconduct?

[3] The charge against the claimant is as follows:

That you, Uthiya Kumar a/l Subramaniam, I/C No: 771223-07- 5663, on 26 September 2003, at 12.30 hrs, in Warehouse department at Nippon Express premises was found fighting with a worker, Shamsuri Aman Bin Rusli Aman. Your actions has caused an injury to another worker, Ragu a/l Ramadas who happened to be at the place. His forehead was badly lacerated by a tray that was used by you to hit Shamsuri Aman. He was taken to a hospital and was admitted for further treatment.

Such a misconduct is against our company policy stated under the Employee Handbook s. 18.2.8 and 18.2.9 and will result in serious disciplinary action taken against you.

Company's Case

[4] The claimant worked as an Operations Clerk. The said Shamsuri was his subordinate. On 26 September 2003 there was a meeting of the Custom Documentary Team at the Customs Office. At the meeting, a misunderstanding arose between the claimant and Shamsuri over some work assignment. They then returned to their respective work stations. The claimant was seated close to Shamsuri. Shamsuri then went to the claimant's work station and uttered 'puki mak hang' to the claimant. It was stated loudly and other employees in work place also heard it. The claimant then stood up and asked what was his problem. At this point, Shamsuri challenged the claimant to a fight outside the office. The claimant then picked up a plastic tray and flung it at Shamsuri but unfortunately it hit another employee by the name of Ragu, who was trying to stop the fight. As a result, Ragu started to bleed from his head and became unconscious and had to be taken to hospital. In spite of this, the fight continued and they had to be held back by the other employees.

Claimant's Defence

[5] On 26 September 2003, the claimant attended a meeting as a member of the Customs Documentation Team. The said Shamsuri also attended the meeting which was conducted by one Baskaran. The claimant was number two in the team and Shamsuri was his subordinate. When he was questioned about the performance of team, he complained about the tardiness of Shamsuri in doing his work. This had annoyed Shamsuri and became the cause of argument between them.

[6] After the meeting, the claimant went back to his work station. While the claimant was at his work station, Shamsuri came to him and said "You kerja enam tahun tak boleh pakai punya orang" and further uttered "puki mak". When the claimant questioned him, Shamsuri then challeng