Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3496
INDUSTRIAL COURT KOTA KINABALU
NUR HAMID MOHD ZAINAL – Appellant
Versus
MALAYSIA AIRPORTS HOLDINGS BHD – Respondent
Award No: 84 of 2025 [Case No: 17/4-767/21]
The employer must prove misconduct for dismissal on a balance of probabilities; failure to do so renders the dismissal unjustified.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Dismissal of employee for alleged medical benefit abuse - The court examined whether the misconduct was established and if it constituted just cause for dismissal - The employer must prove the misconduct on a balance of probabilities - The court found the dismissal was without just cause or excuse. (Paras 12, 46, 63)
(B) Burden of Proof - The employer bears the burden to prove the employee's misconduct and that it warrants dismissal - The court emphasized that the employee is not required to prove innocence. (Paras 15, 17)
(C) Domestic Inquiry - The court noted that a proper domestic inquiry must be conducted in accordance with natural justice principles - The absence of witnesses for the employer during the inquiry raised concerns about compliance with these principles. (Paras 32, 40)
(D) Proportionality of Punishment - The court highlighted that dismissal is a severe penalty and should only be imposed when warranted, considering the employee's service record and the nature of the misconduct. (Paras 51, 62)
Facts of the case:
The Claimant was dismissed for allegedly abusing medical benefits, with claims deemed excessive and unreasonable. The Company conducted a Domestic Inquiry, found him guilty, and terminated his employment effective 23 July 2020. (Paras 6, 9, 24)
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the dismissal was without just cause or excuse, emphasizing the need for proportionality in punishment and the employer's failure to establish misconduct. (Paras 63, 62)
Issues: The main issues included whether the Claimant's alleged misconduct was proven and if the dismissal was justified. (Paras 21, 22)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the employer failed to prove the misconduct on a balance of probabilities and that the dismissal was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. (Paras 63, 62)
Result: The Claimant was awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages totaling RM52,500.76, with interest. (Paras 72, 73)
AWARD
A. Reference
[1] This is a reference by the Honourable Minister of Human Resources under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("the IRA 1967") arising out of the dismissal of Nur Hamid Bin Mohd Zainal (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") by Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad (herein referred to as "the Company").
B. Preface
[2] This Ministerial reference required this Court to hear and determine the Claimant's complaint of dismissal by the Company with effect from 23 July 2020.
[3] The Claimant commenced employment with the Company as an Aviation Security Assistant on 16 February 2009.
[4] This present case relates specifically to the alleged medical benefit abuse by the employees of the Company, including the Claimant. Beginning February 2020 until April 2020, the Company conducted an analysis of medical claims data for the year 2019 and discovered that the claims for medical expenses of employees based in Kota Kinabalu International Airport ("KKIA") were the highest in Malaysia.
[5] By a letter dated 14 May 2020, the Company issued a show cause and suspension letter to the Claimant. After reviewing the Claimant's reply to the show cause letter dated 20 May 2020, the Company decided to conduct a Domestic Inquiry in order to provide the Claimant an opportunity to put forward his defence before an independent Panel of Inquiry.
[6] The Company issued a Notice of Domestic Inquiry dated 29 June 2020 to the Claimant to answer the Charge:
"Anda didapati telah menyalahgunakan faedah rawatan dan perubatan Syarikat di mana jumlah lawatan serta kos rawatan perubatan "General Physician" (GP) bagi diri anda dan tanggungan anda adalah tidak munasabah seperti dalam Lampiran A dan Lampiran B serta jadual di bawah:
Perbuatan anda menyebabkan pihak Syarikat mengalami kerugian kerana menanggung kos rawatan dan perubatan yang tinggi dan menyebabkan Syarikat hilang kepercayaan ke atas integriti anda sebagai seorang kakitangan."
[7] The Claimant attended the Domestic Inquiry on 14 July 2020 and pleaded not guilty to the charge. After the conclusion of the Domestic Inquiry, the panel of the Domestic Inquiry found the Claimant "Guilty" of the charge of misusing the Company's medical benefit.
[8] The Company decided to terminate the Claimant's employment with immediate effect vide a Letter of Dismissal dated 23 July 2020 which, inter alia, stated that "Berdasarkan bukti-bukti dan dokumen-dokumen yang dikemukakan semasa sesi Siasatan Dalaman, pihak Syarikat, dengan ini, mendapati anda bersalah ke atas kesalahan seperti tertera di dalam Notis Siasatan Dalaman bertarikh 29 Jun 2020. Setelah pertimbangan teliti, pihak Syarikat dengan ini berkeputusan untuk menamatkan perkhidmatan anda berkuatkuasa 23 Julai 2020".
[9] The Claimant submits that he was unlawfully terminated and that his dismissal by the Company was without just cause or excuse.
[10] The Company, however, states that the termination of the Claimant's employment was lawful with just cause or excuse. The Company prays for the punishment of dismissal to be upheld and the Claimant's claim to be dismissed.
C. Witnesses
[11] There were five (5) witnesses who testified in Court as follows:
CoW1: Mohd Adib Ismail - the Manager of Industrial Relations - Human Capital Division of the Company. His witness statement was marked as CoWSl.
CoW2: Captain (B) Mazlan Fauzi - the Senior Manager of Industrial Relations and Occupational Safety and Health of the Company. His witness statement was marked as CoWS2.
CoW3: Dayang Ratna Kesmawati Abang Morni - the panel of the Domestic Inquiry. Her witness statement was marked as CoWS3.
CoW4: Dr Jasman Haris - former Medical Director of PMCare Sdn Bhd. His witness statement was marked as CoWS4.
CLW1: Nur Hamid Bin Mohd Zainal - the Claimant. His witness Statement was marked as CLWS1.
D. Duty Of The Industrial Court
[12] The Federal Court in Milan Auto Sdn Bhd v. Wong Seh Yen ; [1995] 4 CLJ 449; [1996] 1 AMR 049, at p 26, held that the function of the
