Back
2025 MarsdenLR 1436
INDUSTRIAL COURT KOTA KINABALU
NUR HAMID MOHD ZAINAL – Appellant
Versus
MALAYSIA AIRPORTS HOLDINGS BHD – Respondent
Award No: 84 Of 2025 [Case No: 17/4-767/21]
The employer must prove just cause for dismissal, and the punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct; dismissal without just cause is unlawful.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Dismissal of employee for alleged medical benefit abuse - The Claimant was dismissed for misusing medical benefits, leading to excessive claims - The Company conducted a Domestic Inquiry, found the Claimant guilty, and terminated his employment - The Claimant contended that the dismissal was without just cause or excuse. (Paras 1-9, 12-13, 21-22, 32-34, 46-62)
(B) Burden of Proof - The employer bears the burden to prove that the dismissal was with just cause or excuse - The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. (Paras 15-20)
(C) Proportionality of Punishment - The dismissal was deemed disproportionate to the misconduct, considering the Claimant's long service and clean record. (Paras 56-62)
Facts of the case:
The Claimant was employed as an Aviation Security Assistant and was dismissed for allegedly abusing medical benefits, leading to excessive claims. The Company conducted a Domestic Inquiry, found him guilty, and terminated his employment. (Paras 3-9)
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the dismissal was without just cause or excuse, and the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct. (Paras 62-64)
Issues: Whether the dismissal was with just cause or excuse and whether the punishment was proportionate to the misconduct. (Paras 21-22)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Company failed to establish that the dismissal was justified, and the punishment was too harsh given the Claimant's long service and lack of prior misconduct. (Paras 62-64)
Result: The Claimant was awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages totaling RM52,500.76. (Paras 72-73)
AWARD
A. Reference
[1] This is a reference by the Honourable Minister of Human Resources under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("the IRA 1967") arising out of the dismissal of Nur Hamid Bin Mohd Zainal (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") by Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad (herein referred to as "the Company").
B. Preface
[2] This Ministerial reference required this Court to hear and determine the Claimant's complaint of dismissal by the Company with effect from 23 July 2020.
[3] The Claimant commenced his employment with the Company as Aviation Security Assistant on 16 February 2009.
[4] This present case relates specifically on the alleged medical benefit abuse by the employees of the Company including by the Claimant. Beginning February 2020 until April 2020, the Company had conducted an analysis of medical claims data for the year 2019 and discovered that the claims for medical expenses of employees based in Kota Kinabalu International Airport ("KKIA") were the highest in Malaysia.
[5] By a letter dated 14 May 2020, the Company issued a Show Cause and Suspension Letter to the Claimant. After reviewing the Claimant's reply to show cause letter dated 20 May 2020, the Company decided to conduct a Domestic Inquiry in order to provide the Claimant an opportunity to put forward his defence before an independent Panel of Inquiry.
[6] The Company issued a Notice of Domestic Inquiry dated 29 June 2020 to the Claimant to answer to the Charge:
"Anda didapati telah menyalahgunakan faedah rawatan dan perubatan Syarikat di mana jumlah lawatan serta kos rawatan perubatan "General Physician" (GP) bagi diri anda dan tanggungan anda adalah tidak munasabah seperti dalam Larmpiran A dan Lampiran B serta jadual di bawah:
Perbuatan anda menyebabkan pihak Syarikat mengalami kerugian kerana menanggung kos rawatan dan perubatan yang tinggi dan menyebabkan Syarikat hilang kepercayaan ke atas integriti anda sebagai seorang kakitangan".
[7] The Claimant attended the Domestic Inquiry on 14 July 2020 and pleaded not guilty to the charge. After the conclusion of the Domestic Inquiry, the panel of Domestic Inquiry found the Claimant "Guilty" to the charge of misusing the Company's medical benefit.
[8] The Company decided to terminate the Claimant's employment with immediate effect vide a Letter of Dismissal dated 23 July 2020 which inter alia stated that "Berdasarkan bukti-bukti dan dokumen-dokumen yang dikemukakan semasa sesi Siasatan Dalaman, pihak Syarikat dengan ini mendapati anda BERSALAH ke atas kesalahan seperti tertera di dalam Notis Siasatan Dalaman bertarikh 29 Jun 2020. Setelah pertimbangan teliti, pihak Syarikat dengan ini berkeputusan untuk menamatkan perkhidmatan anda berkuatkuasa 23 Julai 2020".
[9] The Claimant submits that he was unlawfully terminated and that his dismissal by the Company was without just cause or excuse.
[10] The Company however states that the termination of the Claimant employment was lawful with just cause or excuse. The Company prays for the punishment of dismissal to be upheld and the Claimant's claim to be dismissed.
C. Witnesses
[11] There were five (5) witnesses testified in Court as follows:
CoW1: Mohd Adib Ismail - the Manager Industrial Relations - Human Capital Division of the Company. His witness statement was marked as CoWS1.
CoW2: Captain (B) Mazlan Fauzi - the Senior Manager Industrial Relations and Occupational Safety and Health of the Company. His witness statement was marked as CoWS2.
CoW3: Dayang Ratna Kesmawati Abang Morni - the panel of the Domestic Inquiry. Her witness statement was marked as CoWS3.
CoW4: Dr Jasman Haris - former Medical Director of PMCare Sdn.Bhd. His witness statement was marked as CoWS4.
CLW1: Nur Hamid Bin Mohd Zainal - the Claimant. His witness Statement was marked as CLWS1.
D. Duty Of The Industrial Court
[12] The Federal Court in Milan Auto Sdn Bhd v. Wong Seh Yen; [1995] 3 MLJ 537; [1995] 4 CLJ 449; [1996] 1 AMR 049, at 455 held that the function of t
