Back
2023 MarsdenLR 1792
MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN KUALA LUMPUR
NOR HAZREENA ROSLI LWN. IMPIAN GLOBAL MARKETING RESOURCES
Award No: 1694 Tahun 2023 [No Kes: 2(10)/4-557/22]
Unjustified dismissal occurs when an employer fails to prove just cause or excuse, violating the employee's rights to fair treatment.
Headnote:{"Statute Analysis":"Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 provides for judicial review of dismissals to ensure fairness. Facts reveal that the claimant's employment was terminated without just cause, particularly in the absence of compelling evidence from the employer, leading to a breach of employment rights.","Findings of Court":"The court found that the dismissal was executed without just cause or excuse as the employer failed to substantiate their claims and provide adequate evidence, resulting in an unjust termination.","Issues":"The court framed the central question as whether the dismissal was made with just cause or excuse, emphasizing the burden of proof on the employer to establish just reasons for termination.","Ratio Decidendi":"The employer is required to prove that the dismissal was justified, which was not sufficiently demonstrated in this case, as the claimant's performance was not shown to be lacking in misconduct, negligence, or poor performance.","Result":"The court ruled that the termination was unfair, ordering the respondent to pay a total of RM107,949.80 to the claimant for backwages and compensation in lieu of reinstatement."}
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's jurisdiction in ex-parte proceedings under the industrial relations act. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. determination of whether dismissal was justified under the law. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 16) |
| 3. the necessity for evidence of dismissal reasons was established. (Para 17 , 18 , 24) |
| 4. burden of proof lies with the employer to justify dismissal. (Para 19 , 21 , 22 , 30) |
| 5. court's conclusion on compensation awarded for unjust dismissal. (Para 26 , 31) |
Rujukan
[1] Prosiding di hadapan Mahkamah ini adalah lanjutan daripada rujukan yang dibuat oleh Ketua Pengarah Perhubungan Perusahaan, Malaysia di bawah s 20(3) Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967 , berhubung dengan pembuangan kerja Nor Hazreena Binti Rosli ("Yang Menuntut") pada 25 August 2021 oleh Impian Global Marketing Resources ("pihak Syarikat").
Latarbelakang Sebelum Perbicaraan
[2] Atas permohonan yang dibuat oleh Yang Menuntut dan melalui Award (No 865 Tahun 2022) kes ini telah dipindahkan dari Mahkamah Perusahaan Cawangan Perak ke Mahkamah ini untuk dibicarakan.
[3] Pada tarikh sebutan 16 March 2022, kedua-dua pihak telah diarahkan untuk menfailkan pliding masing-masing pada atau sebelum 13 April 2022 (Statement of Case), 28 April 2022 (Statement in Reply) dan 10 May 2022 (Rejoinder). Setelah kes ini dipindahkan ke Mahkamah ini, tarikh bicara kemudiannya telah di tetapkan pada 11 April 2023 dan 12 April 2023. Dokumen-dokumen yang telah difailkan adalah seperti berikut:
a. Penyata Kes bertarikh 11 April 2022;
b. Jawapan Syarikat Kepada Penyata Kes;
c. Rejoinder bertarikh 18 July 2022;
d. Ikatan Dokumen Pihak Y ang Menuntut (CLB1);
e. Maklumat Vaksinasi (CLB2); dan
f. Kenyataan Saksi Pihak Yang Menuntut (CLWS1).
[4] Pada tarikh sebutan 10 May 2022 pihak Syarikat telah hadir dengan diwakili oleh En Nordin Ahmad (Pengurus Operasi) manakala Yang Menuntut diwakili oleh peguamnya. Selepas daripada itu, pihak Syarikat samaada melalui wakil atau peguam telah gagal hadir pada sesi sebutan yang seterusnya tanpa sebarang alasan walaupun pemakluman telah dibuat terlebih dahulu.
[5] Selanjutnya pada hari perbicaraan 11 April 2023, wakil atau peguam pihak Syarikat gagal hadir tanpa sebarang notis/pemakluman kepada Mahkamah. Justeru, berpandukan kepada peruntukan di bawah Sub-seksyen 29(d) Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967 , perbicaraan tuntutan ini dijalankan secara sebelah pihak (ex- parte) tanpa kehadiran peguam/wakil pihak Syarikat.
"29. Power of The Court
The Court may, in any proceedings before it-
..........
(d) hear and determine the matter before it notwithstanding the failure of any party to submit any written statement whether of case or reply to the Court within such time as may be prescribed by the President or in the absence of any party to the proceedings who has been served with a notice or submission to appear."
[6] Peranan Mahkamah Perusahaan di dalam mengendalikan perbicaraan secara ex-parte telah dijelaskan di dalam kes Wong Brother's Building Construction v. Choo Chee Siam ; [2005] 2 ILR 356;
"The Court is mindful of the role in an ex parte hearing by referring to the case of Ike Video Distributor Sdn Bhd v. Chan Chee Bin where the learned Chairman quoted from the "The Law of Industrial Disputes by OP Malhotra, Vol 3rd Edn P 716:
A rule empowering the tribunal to proceed ex-parte if a party is absent and sufficient cause is not shown for his absence, would not enable it either to do away with the enquiry or straightaway pass an award without giving a finding on the merits of the disputes. In other words, the absence of a party does not entail the consequence that an award will straightaway be made against him."
[7] Kes Dawood Khan v. Labour Court [1969] 11 ILJ 611 pula memutuskan seperti berikut:
"Ex-parte only means in the absence of the other party. It creates a fiction which enables a tribunal presume that all parties are present before it. A fortiori; an adjudicator may imagine that the absentee is present and having done so, it may give full effe
