COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
JYE TAI PRECISION INDUSTRIAL (M) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
VICTORIA ARULSAMY – Respondent
Introduction
[1] We heard this appeal on 23 January 2007, and unanimously allowed it with costs. We now give our reasons. Before we do so, the following are the brief facts of the case.
Facts
[2] The respondent was at all material time an employee of the appellant. She was then 47 years of age and had been with the appellant for 11 years before she was dismissed on 6 June 1999. The reason for her dismissal was that she was found fighting with another employee of the appellant on 15 June 1999 in the appellant's premises. This other employee was none other than her own niece, Julie, who was then 17 years of age. Julie was also dismissed by the appellant. Before dismissing the respondent, the appellant held a domestic inquiry that found her in breach of the appellant's rules and regulations of employment and recommended her dismissal. Dissatisfied with this decision, the respondent made representation under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("the Act") for reinstatement to her former position without loss of service and seniority with back wages, allowances, commissions, benefits and privileges, or, alternatively for loss of wages as compensation in lie
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.