Mohd Azmi Kamaruddin FCJ:

[1] We allowed this appeal on 19 June 1995, and we now give our reasons.

[2] The appeal of Milan Auto Sdn Bhd was against the decision of the High Court dated 22 February 1994 in dismissing the appellant's application to quash the award of the Industrial Court No 116 of 1992 pursuant to a reference made by the Minister of Human Resources under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1967 following representation by Encik Wong Seh Yen (the respondent/claimant), a mechanic with a monthly salary of RM600 who considered himself to have been dismissed without just cause or excuse by the appellant on 31 March 1990. The grounds for the claimant's dismissal, as contained in the company's letter of 31 March 1990 reads:

1

Mr Wong Seh Yen

Re: Termination of Service

We refer to the above captioned subject and regret to inform you that your service is hereby terminated immediately.

We have been informed by your immediate superior, service manager, Mr Yew Sin Nam, that your attitude towards the company's working policy in very unbecoming. On three occasions you have been caught sleeping during office hourby the parts director and operations manager. You have taken leave without approval from your immediate superior. When you were ask to see the management with regards to the mentioned, you were very arrogant and refuse to see the operations manager.

After numerous warnings were given to you both in writing and verbal, you continue to be in disciplined, unproductive, arrogant and refuse to work properly when instructions were given to you by your department manager.

In view of the aforesaid, we have no choice but to terminate your service with immediate effect. Please note that your 2nd half month salary will be with held for Income Tax clearance and a ceasation form will be given to you. You are also to return the overall clothing which was supplied to you by the company and to be handed to your department manager. Failing to do so, we will deduct the amount involved from your salary.

Yours faithfully,

Milan Auto (M) Sdn Bhd.

signed

Hamid bin Sulaiman

Executive Director

[3] There were thus, three main incidents advanced by Milan Auto for the allegedin discipline, unproductivity and arrogance on the part of the claimant which according to the company merited the dismissal:

(i) Wong was caught sleeping on three occasions during office hours;

(ii) he took leave without approval; and

(ii) On each of the above incidents, he refused to see the operations manager, when requested to do so.

[4] In its award, the Industrial Court merely took note of the alleged grounds for the dismissal without making any decision on the merits. Relying on a nearlier Award No 21/69 in the case of Syarikat Great Eastern Life Assurance Bhd v. Kesatuan Sekerja Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Perdagangan, it in effect concluded that it was unnecessary for the Court to examine the evidence and determine whether the company's allegations against the claimant were in fact established, or to consider whether such misconduct if established constituted "a just cause or excuse" for the dismissal, and that it was sufficient to dispose of the dispute purely on account of the company's failure to comply not only with the principle of natural justice but also with the statutory requirement of "due in quiry" before dismissal under s 14(1) of the Employment Act. This is clearly reflected at pp 4 to 7 of the award, which for the sake of convenience is now reproduced:

Before we examine the evidence whether the reasons for dismissing as given inCL2 have been made out, it would be pertinent to examine first as to the requirement of the law before a workman can be dismissed. It has been stated in Award No 21/69 in the case of Syarikat Great Eastern Life Assurance Bhd v. Kesatuan Sekerja Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Perdagangan:

Before the service of an employee can be terminated on the grounds that hehas committed some misconduct which deserves the punishment of dismissal, heshould