Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3829
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
AHMAD SANI ISMAIL – Appellant
Versus
TEGAS LOGISTIK SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 88 Of 2025 [Case No: 15/4-1584/23]
The absence of a domestic inquiry does not invalidate a dismissal if the employer establishes just cause for the termination based on the employee's misconduct.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Dismissal for misconduct - Claimant dismissed for frequent lateness and absenteeism despite warnings - Company failed to conduct a domestic inquiry prior to dismissal, but absence of inquiry not fatal if just cause is established - Claimant's consistent failure to adhere to attendance policies constituted gross misconduct. (Paras 11, 14, 27, 69, 92)
(B) Employment Law - Natural Justice - Requirement for show cause letter and domestic inquiry - Failure to hold such inquiry does not automatically render dismissal unlawful if just cause is established. (Paras 27, 28)
(C) Misconduct - Definition of misconduct in employment - Excessive absenteeism and habitual lateness without valid justification constitutes serious misconduct warranting dismissal. (Paras 80, 92)
Facts of the case:
The Claimant was dismissed by the Company for serious misconduct due to frequent tardiness and absenteeism despite multiple warnings. The dismissal was challenged as being without just cause, as no domestic inquiry was held prior to termination.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Company had established just cause for dismissal based on the Claimant's attendance records and disregard for company policies.
Issues: Whether the dismissal was with just cause given the absence of a domestic inquiry and the validity of the reasons for dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the absence of a domestic inquiry is not fatal if the employer can prove just cause for dismissal, and the Claimant's conduct constituted gross misconduct justifying termination.
Result: Claim dismissed.
[1] This is a reference from the Director General for Industrial Relations to the Industrial Court of Malaysia under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 as amended by the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020 (A 1615) ("the IRA 1967"), in respect of the dismissal of AHMAD SANI BIN ISMAIL ("the Claimant") by h is employer, TEGAS LOGISTIK SDN BHD ("the Company") on 7 March 2023.
B. The Proceedings
[2] The Claimant in this case was dismissed by the Company on grounds of misconduct. The Company alleged that the Claimant committed serious acts of misconduct due to his frequent lateness and absenteeism despite multiple warnings and opportunities given to him.
[3] The Company commenced the case by calling its' sole witness, Alvin a/l Surandran ("COW1") to give evidence in support of the Company's case against the Claimant. He was the Company's Human Resource Manager at all material times.
[4] Upon conclusion of the Company's case, the Claimant commenced his case against the Company. The Claimant did not call any other witnesses to give evidence at the trial. Only the Claimant gave evidence at the trial in support of his case against the Company.
[5] The following cause papers and documents have been filed and/or marked as evidence before the Court and were referred to during the proceedings:
(a) The Claimant's Statement of Case ("Kenyataan Kes") dated 3 January 2024 ("the Statement of Case");
(b) The Company's Statement in Reply ("Kenyataan Jawapan") dated 1 April 2024 ("the Statement in Reply");
(c) The Claimant's Rejoinder dated 19 April 2024 ("the Rejoinder");
(d) The Company's Bundle of Documents ("COB 1");
(e) The Company's Supplementary Bundle of Documents ("COB2");
(f) The Claimant's Bundle of Documents ("CLB1");
(g) The Claimant's Supplementary Bundle of Documents ("CLB2");
(h) The Company's Witness Statement of Alvin a/l Surandran ("COWS1"); and
(i) The Claimant's Witness Statement ("CLWS1").
C. Salient Facts
[6] The Company is principally engaged in the business of providing transport, freight, and forwarding services.
[7] By an Offer of Appointment dated 11 May 2016 ("the Letter of Appointment"), the Claimant was employed by the Company as a Custom Clerk commencing on 3 May 2016.
[8] On 15 December 2022, the Claimant was issued a Warning Letter by the Company ("the Warning Letter") inter alia for his tardiness. He was further informed that deductions would be made from his salary accordingly for such lateness to work.
[9] By a letter of termination dated 7 March 2023 ("the Letter of Termination"), the Company informed the Claimant of its' decision to terminate the Claimant's employment with the Company. The relevant excerpts of the Letter of Termination are reproduced below as follows:
"AHMAD SANI BIN ISMAIL
Lot 8299
Kg Delek Kanan
41250 Klang
Selangor.
7 Mac 2023
NOTIS PENAMATAN KONTRAK
Merujuk perkara di atas, dengan dukacita syarikat terpaksa menamatkan kontrak En Ahmad Sani Bin Ismail dengan no kad pengenalan (790615-10-5319) yang berjawatan sebgai "Custom Executive," Di atas sebab-sebab tertentu kami tidak dapat menyambung kontrak pihak En Ahmad Sani.
2. Sehubungan dengan itu, kami ingin memaklumkan bahawa notis 24 jam diberikan dan perletakan jawatan berkuatkuasa pada 8 Mac 2023. Syarikat juga akan membayar faedah penamatan kontrak perkhidmatan mengikut Akta Kerja 1955 .
Oleh yang demikian, pihak syarikat ingin berterima kasih di atas perkhidmatan encik sepanjang berkhidmat dan semoga pengalaman yang dikecapi dapat digunakan di masa hadapan."
[10] The Claimant was unhappy with the termination of his employment and made a representation to the Director General for Industrial Relations for reinstatement. The matter was accordingly referred to the Industrial Court for adjudication.
D. Evaluation And Findings Of The Court
[11] Notwithstanding that the Letter of Termination stated the resignation would take effect on 8 March 2023, it is not disputed that the Claimant was in fact dismissed by the Company with effect from 8 March 2023 pursu
