AWARD

The Claimant commenced employment with the Company on 26 October 1984 as a technician II. He was duly confirmed on 26 April 1985. By letter dated 4 September 1990 the Company dismissed the Claimant for theft of a wrist-watch belonging to a staff of the Company.

The Claimant alleges that he had been dismissed without just cause or excuse and/or in breach of natural justice. He further claims that his dismissal constitutes an unfair labour practice. Accordingly, he seeks for an order of reinstatement to his former position as technician II or any other alternative relief as the Court may deem fit.

The undisputed facts surrounding the alleged theft of the wrist-watch belonging to a staff of the Company are as follows:

An advisor of the Company, one Y. Shimuzu ( COW5 ) arranged to purchase a "Centurion World Wide" watch from American Express (M) Sdn. Bhd. (AMEX) by mail order. The watch, as it will be evident from the AMEX brochure, is of distinctive design with a unique 24 hour face. There is a bezel around the clock face on which is inscribed the names of 23 major world cities. By rotating the bezel, the wearer will be able to tell the time difference between the various cities. The clock face bears the AMEX logo.

A parcel containing the watch was delivered to the Company's premises on 26 June 1990 and the receipt thereof was acknowledged by Mohd. Nor bin Mohd. Darus (COW2) as executive in the general administration department of the Bangi Plant. The parcel was received at the reception area of the said Bangi Plant, Y. Shimuzu never got the watch which he had ordered, Upon making inquiries with AMEX, sometime in August 1990, he discovered that it had indeed been delivered to the Company. He then informed Ismail Mohamad (COW7), the general manager of the Company who proceeded together with COW2 to investigate the loss.

A few days later, the Claimant was seen by two members of the general administration departments, Agatha Candida Lee (COW5) and Robita Idris (COW8) wearing a watch similar to the watch which had been ordered by COW5.

The facts in dispute essentially revolve around the manner in which the Claimant came to be in possession of the watch. The Company says that he stole it. The Claimant says that he found the watch on the back seat of the Company bus.

The Company's evidence

The Company's case is principally founded upon the evidence of Mohd. Nor (COW2) and Ismail Mohd (COW7). Stated shortly, the Company came to the conclusion that the Claimant stole the watch because he had given inconsistent statements about how he came to be in possession of a watch which is similar to the one which is reported to have been stolen. The basis for their belief is set out in the showcause letter dated 17 October 1990 tendered as exhibit C08. An extract of the relevant portion of the letter is set out below:

Re: Theft

On 13 August 1990 Mr. Mohd. Nor discovered that you were wearing a new wrist-watch similar to the one ordered by Mr. Shimizu. Upon questioning as to how the watch came into your hand you answered by giving three different versions regarding its origin. Firstly you said one story to Mr. Mohd. Noh and subsequently two different versions to Mr. Ismail. They are as follows:

(a) You said to Mr. Mohd. Noh that your brother bought it through Amex card. When this was found to be not true. You said the following to Mr. Ismail;

(b) That your brother bought it from Hong Kong;

(c) Finally you said that you found the watch in the back seat of the factory bus.

The letter went on further to say that in view of the serious inconsistency on the Claimant's part in explaining how he got hold of the watch, the Company has reason to believe that he had stolen it. The Company then gave the Claimant three days upon receipt of the letter to furnish an explanation "so as to refute the above charge of theft against you". In the meantime the Company suspended the Claimant immediately from work pending a domestic inquiry.

The Claimant replied to the showcause le