The Claimant was appointed as a probationary production supervisor of the Company on 17 February 1992. On 1 May 1992, the Claimant was confirmed in the said appointment. Barely two months later, on 23 June 1992 events occurred which led to the Claimant's employment being brought to an end.

The manner in which the employer-employee relationship between the Claimant and the Company came to an end is a matter of considerable dispute. The Company alleges in its statement of reply that the Claimant resigned orally and without giving the requisite notice. The Claimant, however, alleges in his statement of case that he had been dismissed. Even, if he did resign, such a resignation was forced upon him. Alternatively, he avers that the resignation tantamounts to a constructive dismissal.

In this present case before the Court, the alleged resignation or dismissal is said to have occurred in the course of a confrontation between the Claimant and the managing director of the Company, COW1.

The Company is a manufacturer of cans which are supplied to various purchasers. Sometime in June 1992, the Company had supplied 1,442 units of 17-liter cans to one of their customers, M/s. Teh Brothers Oils and Food Co. Of the cans supplied, 634 of them were returned. The reason for the customer rejecting the goods was that the cans were defective in that the saddle wire handles became easily detached when the cans were filled. The delivery order/ receipt showing the rejection of the said cans was tendered and marked as exhibit CO1.

Accordingly, vide a letter dated 23 June 1992 (exhibit CL1) the managing director of the Company (COW1) informed the Claimant who was the supervisor in charge of manufacturing the component parts for the cans about the rejection and the return of the goods. He was asked to examine the goods and to give a written reply within 24 hours.

The Claimant upon receiving the letter went to see COW1 at his office. It was around 2.00 p.m. then. COW1 who was accompanied by an officer, one Ms. Elaine See from a financial institution was about to enter his office. According to COW1's evidence, the Claimant who was waiting for him told the latter that he must see him. COW1 told the Claimant to see him later as he had the visitor with him. The Claimant, however, insisted on seeing him and rushed into his office.

COW1 said that the Claimant had then thrown the samples of tin-plate which he had brought with him on the floor and generally created a scene. He had assaulted him by grabbing his throat. COW1 said it was then that he asked the Claimant to leave. When the Claimant refused he had then called the police. They both then went to the police station where both of them made police reports. The reports lodged by COW1 and the Claimant are marked as exhibit CO2 and exhibit CL3 respectively.

COW1 also stated in cross-examination that the Claimant had said "this is your lousy... (expletive deleted) thing" as he was throwing the tin-plate samples on the floor. He insisted that Ms. Elaine See was in his room when the incident occurred. He further claimed that the Claimant intimidated the other persons in his office. He had only asked the Claimant to get out when the Claimant was shouting abuse at him. He said he was angry and may have raised his voice.

Subsequently