Chairman: Dato' Wong Chin Wee:

[1] The basic issue of the case before the Court is whether the dismissal of the Claimant by the Company on 23rd April 1985 was with just cause or excuse; and if not, what should be the remedy.

[2] The Claimant joined the services of the Company on 15th August 1983 as a lecturer on a monthly salary of $900.00. At the time of her dismissal she was drawing a salary of $1,000.00 per month.

The brief preliminary outline of the case for the Company is that when the Claimant applied for employment with the Company she stated in her Application for Employment form (Exhibit Co.1) that she had passed Parts III & IV of the examinations held by the Institute of Chartered Secretaries & Administrators (hereinafter referred to as ICSA) and when this was found to be false, she was dismissed. The Company further averred that no domestic inquiry was necessary and none was held, because the Claimant had signed an undertaking in Part D of the Application for Employment form which reads:

"I understand that if I accept an offer of employment and any of the above information is subsequently found to be incorrect, my employment may be terminated forthwith."

As a further ground for the dismissal, the Company led evidence in Court alleging that the Claimant was inefficient in her work.

[3] The Claimant's contention is that the relevant part of her Application for Employment form (Exhibit Co.1) had been tampered with: under the column "Examinations passed" where she had written "Part I & II", the Roman figures, she alleges, have been changed to read "Part III & IV". She maintains that the Company knew of the exact status of her academic and professional qualifications right from the dates of her two job interviews on 12th August 1983 and 13th August 1983.

In brief, her case is that the Company dismissed her without just cause or excuse and later tried to manufacture false evidence and excuses to justify the dismissal.

[4] The Company produced only one witness: Encik Ramasundram @ Renganathan (CW.1) who is the Evening Supervisor of the Stamford College, Kuala Lumpur, where the Claimant worked.

The major part of this witness' evidence is, it has to be said, lamentably inadequate in substance and quality. This may be understandable because his duties were basically in the evening whereas the Claimant taught mainly in the day classes. When producing Exhibit Co.1, the crucial application form in his examination-in-Chief, CW.1 said:

"I did not interview the Claimant for the job.

The (then) Principal Mr Charles Nicholson interviewed her ........................ I assume she was taken in by him."

In cross-examination he testified:

"Yes, Mr Charles Nicholson was the person who interviewed her.

No one else interviewed her."

But when shown the initials "WP/CN" against the column "Interviewed by" in Exhibit Co.1, he admitted that WP stood for Winston Pereira and CN for Charles Nicholson.

Mr Winston Pereira is the Director of the Stamford College in Kuala Lumpur. Witness CW.1 then admitted that these two gentlemen interviewed the Claimant for the job.

[5] Understandably too, CW.1 could only give an opinion of what transpired at the pre-employment interview - e.g.

"I believe the Claimant had produced all her certificates at the interview. I am not competent to say what are the certificates she produced.... Only Winston Pereira and Charles Nicholson are the persons who know what documents were produced at the interview."

[6] Mr Charles Nicholson left the Company in November 1984.

Mr Winston Pereira however was (on the day of hearing) in Kuala Lumpur according to witness CW.1. He was invited by the Court through the Company's Counsel to give evidence but did not see it fit to do so on the two opportunities offered: on the afternoon of 12th December 1985 and on 13th December 1985.

As regards the crucial document Exhibit Co.1 itself, CW.1 stated:

"I only first saw Exhibit Co.1 after the dismissal of the Claimant. I am not sure that the Claimant did not fil