Back
2022 MarsdenLR 584
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
MOHAMAD AZLAN MOHAMAD NOOR – Appellant
Versus
RAWANG SPECIALIST HOSPITAL SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 2047 Of 2022 [Case No: 11(19)/4-1967/19]
Dismissal of an employee is justified when substantial misconduct is established and proper inquiry procedures are followed, therefore ensuring natural justice.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 – Section 20(3) – Dismissal of employee for misconduct – Employee dismissed for failing to refund cash advances against mileage claims – Inquiry conducted but employee alleged procedural improprieties – Court held that natural justice was observed and dismissal was justified – Claim dismissed. (Paras 36, 81)
(B) Natural Justice – Industrial Court's duty to ensure that procedures followed comply with fair practices – The Court finds no procedural impropriety in domestic inquiry – Employer had just cause for dismissal. (Paras 37, 81)
Facts of the case: The Claimant was dismissed for failing to deduct cash advances from mileage claims, despite admitting guilt at the domestic inquiry held on 22 March 2019. (Paras 12, 14)
Findings of Court: The Court confirmed that the domestic inquiry was conducted properly, with sufficient opportunity for the Claimant to defend himself. The dismissal was supported by substantial evidence. (Paras 33, 81)
Issues: Whether the dismissal was with just cause and whether the inquiry followed proper procedures. (Paras 36, 81)
Ratio Decidendi: The inquiry's adherence to principles of natural justice was upheld; the Claimant's misconduct warranted dismissal. (Paras 37, 81)
Result: Claimant's claim against the Company dismissed.
AWARD
A. Reference
[1] This is a reference from The Honourable Minister of Human Resources, Malaysia to the Industrial Court of Malaysia under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("the IRA ") in respect of the dismissal of Mohamad Azlan Bin Mohamad Noor ("the Claimant") by his employer, Rawang Specialist Hospital Sdn Bhd ("the Company") on 14 May 2019.
[2] Together with the Claimant, there were two (2) other claimants who were jointly referred under the same reference by The Honourable Minister to the Industrial Court namely one Shahrul Nizam Bin Mohammad ("Shahrul") and Muhammad Hakimi Bin Hasimon ("Hakimi"). They were also employees of the Company and dismissed by the Company on 14 May 2019 for similar reasons.
[3] Notwithstanding all the above named claimants were jointly referred to the Industrial Court under the same reference by The Honourable Minister, they were assigned with different suit / case numbers and regarded as separate individual cases in the Industrial Court as follows:
(a) Case No: 11(19)/4-1965/19 - Shahrul Nizam Bin Mohammad
(b) Case No: 11(19)/4-1966/19 - Muhammad Hakimi Bin Hasimon
(c) Case No: 11(19)/4-1967/19 - Mohamad Azlan Bin Mohamad Noor
[4] When the cases were called up for hearing, parties had request for their cases to be heard together. For expediency's sake, the Court had agreed for all the three (3) cases to be heard together since the facts are identical and the issues to be tried are also similar. However, the Court shall hand down separate awards for all the cases.
B. Background
[5] The name of the Company speaks for itself. The Company is in the business of providing medical and healthcare services. The Company is owned by KPJ Healthcare Berhad ("the KPJ Group").
[6] The Claimant commenced employment with the Company on 16 January 2017 as a Marketing Officer. He was subsequently transferred to the Business Office and re-designated as a Credit Control Assistant, effective from 1 November 2017. The Claimant had held the position of Credit Control Assistant, same as that of Shahrul until he was dismissed by the Company.
[7] Like Shahrul, the Claimant's responsibilities included inter alia ensuring all invoices were sent to the debtors according to the Company's terms and conditions, account being managed properly and debts owing to the Company being collected within the credit terms approved by the Company.
[8] The Claimant was also expected to travel and visit the Company's clients on his motorbike and car to inform them of their outstanding payments owing to the Company from time to time.
[9] As such, the Company had at the request of the Claimant, agreed to make cash advancement to the Claimant toward payment of his travelling expenses. The Claimant had from time to time requested for cash advances for his travelling expenses and the Company had granted him the same. It was agreed that the Claimant shall offset the cash advances taken by him from the Company against his mileage claims
[10] For the period between December 2017 to December 2018, the Claimant had requested and the Company had granted him cash advances of RM300.00 every month toward payments of his travelling expenses. The total cash advances taken by the Claimant for this entire period was RM3,900.00.
[11] On 12 February 2019, the Claimant was issued with a show cause letter dated 12 February 2019 by the Company for his failure to make deduction of the cash advanced to him against his travelling mileage claims The Company accused the Claimant of breaching the Company's disciplinary rules and regulations as follows:
(a) Employee Handbook art 2.0 (Major Misconduct): Theft, fraud or dishonesty including attempted theft, attempted dishonesty in connection with the Company's business or property; and
(b) Company's Core values: integrity.
[12] By a letter dated 14 February 2019, the Claimant promptly replied to the Company's show cause letter. However, the Company found the Claimant's reply and explanations to be uns
