Ini adalah satu kes pembuangan kerja Encik Jeremy John Figgins (Yang Menuntut) oleh Kenneison Brothers Sdn. Bhd. (Responden) pada 16.8.2005. Kes ini telah dirujuk oleh Y.B. Menteri Sumber Manusia pada 28.6.2006 dan diterima di Mahkamah Perusahaan ini pada 4.10.2006.

Kes ini telah ditetapkan untuk perbicaraan pada hari ini. Sebelum perbicaraan dimulakan Encik Ramadass, peguam bijaksana Syarikat telah mengemukakan permohonan supaya Pihak Menuntut memulakan kesnya dan bukannya Syarikat. Cik R. Subitra peguam bijaksana Pihak Menuntut membantah permohonan tersebut.

2. Peguam Responden di dalam hujjahnya merujuk kepada Statement of Case khususnya perenggan 3 yang menyatakan:-

"The dispute is over the summary dismissal of the Claimant from the services of the Company as its Director of Group Business Development with effect from 16th August 2005."

Peguambela Pihak Menuntut berhujjah bahawa ungkapan "summary dismissal" yang digunakan di perenggan 3 itu tidak merujuk kepada pembuangan kerja konstruktif. Ini adalah pembuangan kerja biasa. Oleh itu, Pihak Syarikat yang sepatutnya memulakan kesnya.

Pihak Syarikat telah menukilkan kes Weltex Knitwear Industries Sdn. Bhd. v. Law Kar Toy & Anor; [1998] 7 MLJ 359 dan kes Borneo Pulp & Paper Sdn. Bhd. [2002] 3 ILR 1227 bagi menyokong hujjahnya. Di dalam kes Weltex, Y.A. Hakim Abdul Kadir Sulaiman memutuskan antara lain di halaman 363:-

"........ The Law is clear that if the fact of dismissal is not in dispute, the burden is on the company to satisfy the court that such dismissal was done with just cause or excuse. This is because, by the 1967 Act, all dismissal is prima facie done without just cause or excuse. Therefore, if an employee asserts otherwise, the burden is on him to discharge. However, where the fact of dismissal is in dispute, it is for the workman to establish that he was dismissed by his employer. If he fails, there is no onus whatsoever on the employer to establish anything for in such a situation no dismissal has taken place and the question of it being with just cause or excuse would not at all arise (see Wong Chee Hong v. Cathay Organisation (M) Sdn. Bhd [1988] 1 CLJ 298 (Rep); [1988] 1 CLJ 45; [1988] 1 MLJ 92). In the present case, it is the first respondent who asserts that she was dismissed and the applicant denies it. So, it is for the first respondent to establish so by evidence."

Di dalam kes Borneo Pulp pula, setelah Y.A. Pengerusi Mahkamah Perusahaan meneliti kes Wong Chee Hong v. Cathay Organisation (M) Sdn. Bhd. [1988] 1 CLJ (Rep) 298 dan kes Weltex Knitwear Industries Sdn. Bhd. v. Law Kar Toy & Anor; [1998] 7 MLJ 359 memutuskan antara lain:-

"Reading these two authorities together, the court to satisfied that since the company is disputing the fact of dismissal, the burden of proof falls on the claimant who must prove the dismissal. That being the case, the Court had directed the claimant to start the case."

Peguambela Pihak Menuntut telah menyatakan fakta di dalam kes Weltex adalah berbeza dengan kes in. Ini adalah kerana di dalam kes Weltex, di mana Pihak Menuntut dalam kes tersebut telah dipaksa menandatangani surat perletakan jawatan. Ia dapat dilihat di halaman 362.:-

"By the statement of case, the first respondent avers that she worked for the applicant as a supervisor. In early 1993, the applicant summarily ordered her to be a 'sample sewer'. The applicant was not satisfied with her production capacity and required of her to produce more to be commensurate with her salary paid by the company. Later, the applicant forced her into signing a printed letter of resignation to take effect from 5 June 1995 marked as exh C-1. Therefore, she claimed that she was dismissed from her job with the applicant from that effective date and that this missal was without just cause or excuse, and contrary to the principles of natural justice and an unfair labour practice."

Sementara dalam kes Borneo Pulp, Pihak Menuntut masih belum bekerja lagi di dalam syarikat. Oleh it