This dispute between Mardec Berhad (hereinafter called 'the company') and Gurusamy a/l Rambayiah (hereinafter called 'the claimant') is over the dismissal of the claimant by the company w.e.f. 5 July 1991.

The claimant joined the company in September 1978 as a manager and was subsequently promoted as a senior manager.At the time of his dismissal the claimant was attached to the company's factory in Ulu Langat, Selangor as its factory manager.

On 28 March 1991 the company suspended the claimant from duty.About 2276 months later he was asked to attend an inquiry.The letter informing him of the inquiry stated, inter alia, as follows:

The Charges

1. That you being Senior Factory Manager in charge of the Ulu Langat Factory had been negligent, mismanaged, and/or not exercised due care in performing your duties resulting in a crop shortage of 879,375kg of scrap material amounting to $1,576,367.62 as at 27th March 1991.

2. that you being the Senior Factory Manager in charge of the Ulu Langat Factory had not complied with established company procedures by:

(a) not ensuring that test weighing of the weigh-bridge is done daily from 24th September 1990;

(b) not ensuring that proper records on stocks in the bins are maintained;

(c) not conducting monthly stock take on scrap rubber.

3. that you have knowingly misled Mardec by:

(a) not declaring the crop shortage of about 300 tons in December 1988 when this was brought to your notice by the Asst.Factory Manager, Mr. Lee Kim Guan;

(b) instructing the said Assistant Factory Manager to report the shortage to Head Office.

The above acts are contrary to the company's established rules and practices and regulations and directions given to you and they constitute serious acts of misconduct and attract serious punishment, as per s. 24.1 r. 8 of Mardec Terms and Conditions of service which read "Dishonesty or removal of another staff's property or corporation's property without permission, including theft or fraud in connection with the corporation's business." And also r. 15 which read "Inefficiency or Incompetence including careless or negligence on the job."

You may bring along with you at the inquiry, any witnesses or other evidence documentary or otherwise in your favour.You will also be given the opportunity to cross examine any company witnesses.

The claimant attended the inquiry and was found guilty of charges 1 and 2(c) set out above and the company dismissed the claimant as recommended by the inquiry panel.Thereupon the claimant filed representations under s. 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ('the Act') in respect of his dismissal and the matter was referred to the Industrial Court for adjudication.

The parties thereafter filed their respective statement of case and statement in reply.In the statement of case filed on behalf of the claimant it was contended, inter alia, that the claimant had been dismissed without just cause or excuse and in breach of the rules of natural justice and prayed that the claimant be reinstated in his former position in the company without any loss of salary, service and privileges.In its statement in reply the company contended, inter alia, that the claimant was guilty of charges of a serious nature and that the company had no choice but to dismiss the claimant with just cause or excuse.

It has been submitted on behalf of the claimant that the domestic inquiry conducted by the company was in breach of the rules of natural justice as the witnesses called by the company during the inquiry were examined in the absence of the claimant although he was directed to and did attend the inquiry but was told to wait outside the room when the company's witnesses evidence was taken by the inquiry panel.Encik Zakaria bin Talib (COW1) who was the personnel manager of the company at the material time of the inquiry confirmed this in his evidence before this Court as follows:

I agree company's witnesses were examined during the absence of claimant.During the inquiry the company's witness