Back
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
GOPALA KRISHNA KANNIAPPAN – Appellant
Versus
RHB BANK BERHAD – Respondent
Award No: 1654 Of 2024 [Case No: 5/4-2688/21]
Based on the provided legal document, the court's findings and reasoning are as follows:
The court confirmed that the dismissal of the Claimant was with just cause, supported by substantial evidence, primarily CCTV footage and circumstantial proof indicating misconduct (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence demonstrated that the Claimant entered and exited the storeroom on multiple occasions, carrying a black plastic bag containing a box of similar size to the missing pressure cooker, and was the only person observed doing so during the relevant period (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Claimant's explanations regarding his actions, including carrying a personal box containing his belongings, were inconsistent with the CCTV footage and physical evidence, such as the size and type of bags and boxes he claimed to have used (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The circumstantial evidence, including the receipt of a pressure cooker of the same model shortly after the alleged theft and the CCTV footage, strongly pointed to the Claimant's involvement in the theft of the pressure cooker (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The investigation process was thorough, with multiple internal investigations, supervised viewing of CCTV recordings, and corroborating evidence such as courier receipts and eyewitness statements, all of which supported the conclusion that the Claimant committed misconduct (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Claimant was given ample opportunity to respond to disciplinary notices, view CCTV footage, and present explanations, but failed to provide credible or consistent defenses (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court found that the employer had satisfied its burden of proof on the balance of probabilities, establishing that the Claimant's actions constituted theft and serious misconduct, justifying his dismissal (!) (!) .
The allegations of procedural unfairness, such as the absence of a domestic inquiry, were unfounded, as the employer conducted multiple investigations, provided the Claimant with opportunities to be heard, and followed proper procedures (!) (!) .
The Claimant's claims of active concealment or tampering of evidence by the court were dismissed as unfounded, given that the court's proceedings and recordings were complete and properly documented (!) .
In conclusion, the court dismissed the Claimant's case, affirming that the employer had proven just cause for dismissal based on clear, credible evidence and proper procedural conduct.
AWARD
Reference
[1] This is a reference made under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (The Act) arising out of the dismissal of Gopala Krishna A/L Kanniappan (Claimant) by RHB Bank Berhad (Company) on the 26 January 2021.
[2] The Director General's reference in this case required the court to hear and determine the Claimant's complaint of dismissal by the Company on 26 January 2021.
[3] This court considered the notes of proceedings, documents and cause papers in handing down this Award namely:
(a) Statement of Case dated 4 February 2022;
(b) Statement in Reply dated 18 March 2022;
(c) Rejoinder dated 15 April 2022;
(d) Claimant's Bundle of Documents - CLB-1, CLB-2, CLB-3, CLB-4, CLB-5;
(e) Company's Bundle of Documents - COB-1, COB-2, COB-3, COB-4, COB-5, COB-6, COB-7,COB-8A, COB-8B-8D, COB-9, COB-10, COB-11, COB-12;
(f) Claimant's Witness Statement - CLW-1SA, CLW-1SB (Gopala Krishna);
(g) Company's Witness Statement - COW-1S (Nur Atikah bt Yunos), COW-2S (Faressa Alina bt Mohd Sujak), COW-3S (Noraini bt Tulimin), COW-4S (Mohd Fadzil b Ahmad), COW-5S (Chandran Selvarajah), COW-6S (Goh Xin Jie);
(h) Company's Written Submission and Reply; and
(l) Company's Bundle of Authorities.
The Claimant did not file in their written submission although he has been directed to do so by the court.
Background
[4] The dispute before this court is the claim by the Claimant that he had been dismissed from his employment by the Company on 26 January 2021 without just cause or excuse.
[5] On 1 March 2019, the Company promoted the Claimant to the position of Team Lead Manager.
[6] On 2 December 2020, the Company suspended the service of the Claimant pending an investigation into an alleged serious misconduct by the Claimant.
[7] On 7 January 2021, the Company notified the Claimant by letter that it intended to take disciplinary action against the Claimant for his serious misconduct as reported in the said letter and informed the Claimant that he may provide the Company any ground to refute and/or rebut the decision to be taken including any factors of mitigation for the Company's consideration.
[8] On 18 January 2021, the Claimant replied to the Company's letter/notice of intended disciplinary action.
[9] On 26 January 2021, the Company notified the Claimant that the Group Disciplinary Committee (GDC) views his action constituting a major misconduct as it reflects considerable doubt on his honesty and integrity, which also amounts to an act abuse of his position of trust. As such, the Company could no longer repose the necessary trust and confidence in him to perform his duties faithfully, honestly, and with integrity as well as it may tarnish the reputation of the Company and therefore he was dismissed with immediate effect. The Claimant's last drawn salary was RM8,7000.00 basic salary.
The Duty Of The Industrial court
[10] The Supreme court in the case of Wong Chee Hong v. Cathay Organisation Malaysia Sdn Bhd , [1988] 1 MLJ 92 held that:
"When the Industrial court is dealing with a reference under s 20, the first thing that the court will have to do is to ask itself a question whether there was a dismissal, and if so, whether it was with or without just cause or excuse."
[11] The Federal court in the case of Goon Kwee Phoy v. J & P Coats (M) Bhd, 1981 MarsdenLR 117 held that:
"Where representations are made and are referred to the Industrial court for enquiry, it is the duty of that court to determine whether the termination or dismissal is with or without just cause or excuse. If the employer chooses to give a reason for the action taken by him, the duty of the Industrial court will be to enquire whether that excuse or reason has or has not been made out. If it finds as a fact that it has not been proved, then the inevitable conclusion must be that the termination or dismissal was without just cause or excuse".
The Standard Of Proof
[12] In the case of Telekom Malaysia Kawasan Utara v. Krishnan Kutty Sanguni Nair & Anor, 2002 MarsdenLR
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
