Back
2000 MarsdenLR 1474
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
PETROLIAM NASIONAL BHD – Appellant
Versus
ANUAR MOHD ARIFF – Respondent
Award No. 694 Of 2000 [Case No: 6/4-68/98]
Dismissal for misconduct due to habitual lateness and unauthorized absences justified under established labor law principles.
Headnote:This case examines the dismissal of the claimant on grounds of misconduct due to excessive absence and habitual latecoming, guided by section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The Court determined that the company’s dismissal process adhered to legal standards, and the claimant's misconduct warranted dismissal. The pivotal questions considered were the legitimacy of the dismissal and whether the misconduct constituted just cause. Ultimately, the dismissal was upheld, reaffirming the employer's right to terminate under the established factual framework.
09.01.1997 (Khamis), 17.01.1997 (Jumaat), 18.01.1997 (Sabtu), 25.01.1997 (Sabtu), 27.01.1997 (Isnin), 30.01.1997 (Khamis dan 31.01.1997 (Jumaat).
Februari
06.02.1997 (Khamis), 17.02.1997 (Isnin), dan 18.02.1997 (Selasa).
Mac
03.03.1997 (Isnin), 07.03.1997 (Jumaat), 10.03.1997 (Isnin), 14.03.1997 (Jumaat), 19.03.1997 (Rabu), 26.03.1997 (Rabu), 27.03.1997 (Khamis) dan 28.03.1997 (Jumaat).
April
04.04.1997 (Jumaat), 10.04.1997 (Khamis) dan 14.04.1997 (Isnin).
Perbuatan tuan ini adalah satu perbuatan salahlaku yang serius di bawah Fasal (Pindaan) 15(a) Syarat-syarat dan Peraturan-Peraturan Perkhidmatan untuk Kakitangan Bukan Eksekutif PETRONAS. Sekiranya tuan disabitkan dengan kesalahan tersebut, tuan boleh dikenakan tindakan tatatertib di bawah Fasal (Pindaan) 15(b) Syarat-syarat dan Peraturan-Peraturan Perkhidmatan di atas.
KEDUA
Bahawa tuan, Anuar Mohd. Ariff, No. Kakitangan 10255, yang bertugas sebagai Kerani Pembelian I di Jabatan PSTM & Pentadbiran, PETRONAS Property Management Services Sdn. Bhd (PPMSSB) telah melakukan satu perbuatan salahlaku kerana didapati hadir lewat ke pejabat iaitu selepas jam 8.30 pagi pada tarikh-tarikh berikut:
Januari
04.01.1997 (Sabtu), 22.01.1997 (Rabu), dan 24.01.1997 (Jumaat).
Mac.
17.02.1997 (Isnin), 18.03.1997 (Selasa), 20.03.1997 (Khamis), 22.03.1997 (Sabtu), dan 29.03.1997 (Sabtu).
April
02.04.1997 (Rabu), 09.04.1997 (Rabu), 11.04.1997 (Jumaat), 12.04.1997 (Sabtu), 16.04.1997 (Rabu), 17.04.1997 (Khamis), 19.04.1997 (Sabtu), 23.04, 1997 (Rabu), 24.04.1997 (Khamis) dan 25.04.1997 (Jumaat).
Perbuatan tuan ini adalah satu perbuatan salahlaku yang serius di bawah Fasal (Pindaan) 15(a) Syarat-Syarat dan Peraturan-Peraturan Perkhidmatan untuk Kakitangan Bukan Eksekutif PETRONAS. Sekiranya tuan disabitkan dengan kesalahan tersebut, tuan boleh dikenakan tindakan tatatertib di bawah Fasal (Pindaan 15(b) Syarat-Syarat dan Peraturan-Peraturan di atas.
The domestic inquiry was duly held on the said date and at the end of it the panel found the claimant guilty of the charges levelled against him. Vide letter of 23 June 1997 the claimant was informed by PPMSSB that he was dismissed with effect from 23 June 1997.
The claimant contends he was dismissed without just cause and excuse.
The Law
The role of the Industrial Court on a reference under s. 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 has been explicitly explained by Mohd. Azmi FCJ. in Milan Auto Sdn. Bhd. v. Wong Seh Yen , as follows:
... As pointed out by this Court recently in Wong Yuen Hock v. Hong Leong Assurance [1995] 2 MLJ. 753, the function of the Industrial Court in dismissal cases on a reference under s. 20 is twofold, first, to determine whether the
misconduct complained of by the employer has been established and secondly whether the proven misconduct constitutes just cause or excuse for the dismissal.
In Wong Yuen Hock V. Syarikat Hong Leong Assurance Sdn. Bhd. & Another Appeal [1995] 1 MLRA 412, at p. 352 the Federal Court held as hereunder:
On the authorities we were of the view that the main and only function of the Industrial Court in dealing with a reference under section 20 of the Act (unless otherwise lawfully provided by the terms of reference) is to determine whether the misconduct or irregularities complained of by the management as the grounds of dismissal were in fact committed by the workman and if so, whether such grounds constitute just cause or excuse for the dismissal.
It is a principle of industrial jurisprudence that in a dismissal case the employer must produce convincing and cogent evidence that the workman committed the offence or offences he is alleged to have committed for which he has been dismissed. The burden of proof lies on the employer and he has to adduce evidence that the workman was dismissed for just cause and excuse.
The Issues
A fortiori the issues before the Court are:
(a) whether there was a dismissal? and
(b) in the event the Court holds that there was a dismissal, whether it was with just cause or excuse?
In ascertaining if
