Back
2025 MarsdenLR 670
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
AHMAD SANI ISMAIL – Appellant
Versus
TEGAS LOGISTIK SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 808 of 2025 [Case No: 15/4-1584/23]
The Industrial Court established that excessive absenteeism and habitual lateness, coupled with disregard for company procedures, constitute serious misconduct justifying dismissal, even in the absence of a domestic inquiry.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Dismissal for misconduct - Employee alleged to have displayed excessive absenteeism and habitual lateness, with failure to adhere to company procedures - The Industrial Court found that the dismissal was with just cause owing to serious misconduct established by the Company. (Paras 11, 69, 92)
(B) Employment Law - Dismissal procedures - The absence of a domestic inquiry is not necessarily fatal in determining whether dismissal was justified; however, the burden of proof rests on the employer to demonstrate just cause for dismissal. (Paras 27, 92)
Facts of the case:
The Claimant was employed by a logistics company and was dismissed for habitual lateness and absenteeism after multiple warnings. Dismissal was effective from 8 March 2023. (Paras 2, 9)
Findings of Court:
The Court upheld that the Claimant's conduct constituted gross misconduct due to excessive absenteeism and habitual lateness without justified reasons. The dismissal was deemed justified according to the evidence presented. (Paras 69, 92)
Issues: The primary issues included whether the dismissal was with just cause, and whether the procedures followed by the Company were in line with legality and fairness. (Paras 25, 92)
Ratio Decidendi: The Industrial Court can determine if the dismissal was justified, utilizing the evidence presented to weigh whether the misconduct alleged had been proven by the employer. Excessive misconduct justifies dismissal. (Paras 12, 92)
Result: Claimant's claims are dismissed; dismissal found to be with just cause.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismissal reference under industrial relations act (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. court's analysis of reasons for dismissal (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 20 , 31 , 35 , 36) |
| 3. arguments related to misconduct and response (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 80 , 81 , 84) |
| 4. decision on just cause for dismissal (Para 29 , 30) |
| 5. final ruling on the dismissal (Para 90 , 92) |
A. Reference
[1] This is a reference from the Director General for Industrial Relations to the Industrial Court of Malaysia under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 as amended by the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020 (A 1615) ("the IRA 1967"), in respect of the dismissal of AHMAD SANI ISMAIL ("the Claimant") by his employer, TEGAS LOGISTIK SDN BHD ("the Company") on 7 March 2023.
B. The Proceedings
[2] The Claimant in this case was dismissed by the Company on the grounds of misconduct. The Company alleged that the Claimant committed serious acts of misconduct due to his frequent lateness and absenteeism despite multiple warnings and opportunities given to him.
[3] The Company commenced the case by calling its sole witness, Alvin Surandran ("COW1") to give evidence in support of the Company's case against the Claimant. He was the Company's Human Resources Manager at all material times.
[4] Upon conclusion of the Company's case, the Claimant commenced his case against the Company. The Claimant did not call any other witnesses to give evidence at the trial. Only the Claimant gave evidence at the trial in support of his case against the Company.
[5] The following cause papers and documents have been filed and/or marked as evidence before the Court and were referred to during the proceedings:
(a) the Claimant's Statement of Case ("Kenyataan Kes") dated 3 January 2024 ("the Statement of Case");
(b) the Company's Statement in Reply ("Kenyataan Jawapan") dated 1 April 2024 ("the Statement in Reply");
(c) the Claimant's Rejoinder dated 19 April 2024 ("the Rejoinder");
(d) the Company's Bundle of Documents ("COB1");
(e) the Company's Supplementary Bundle of Documents ("COB2");
(f) the Claimant's Bundle of Documents ("CLB1");
(g) the Claimant's Supplementary Bundle of Documents ("CLB2");
(h) the Company's Witness Statement of Alvin Surandran ("COWS1"); and
(i) The Claimant's Witness Statement ("CLWS1").
C. Salient Facts
[6] The Company is principally engaged in the business of providing transport, freight, and forwarding services.
[7] By an Offer of Appointment dated 11 May 2016 ("the Letter of Appointment"), the Claimant was employed by the Company as a Customs Clerk commencing on 3 May 2016.
[8] On 15 December 2022, the Claimant was issued a Warning Letter by the Company ("the Warning Letter") inter alia for his tardiness. He was further informed that deductions would be made from his salary accordingly for such lateness to work.
[9] By a letter of termination dated 7 March 2023 ("the Letter of Termination"), the Company informed the Claimant of its decision to terminate the Claimant's employment with the Company. The relevant excerpts of the Letter of Termination are reproduced below as follows:
"AHMAD SANI BIN ISMAIL
Lot 8299
Kg Delek Kanan
41250 Klang
Selangor.
7 Mac 2023
NOTIS PENAMATAN KONTRAK
Merujuk perkara di atas, dengan dukacita syarikat terpaksa menamatkan kontrak En Ahmad Sani Bin Ismail dengan no kad pengenalan (790615-10-5319) yang berjawatan sebagai "Custom Executive," Di atas sebab-sebab tertentu kami tidak dapat menyambung kontrak pihak En Ahmad Sani.
2. Sehubungan dengan itu, kami ingin memaklumkan bahawa notis 24 jam diberikan dan perletakan jawatan berkuatkuasa pada 8 Mac 2023. Syarikat juga akan membayar faedah penamatan kontrak perkhidmatan mengikut Akta Kerja 1955 .
Oleh yang demikian, pihak syarikat ingin berterima kasih di atas perkhidmatan encik sepanjang berkhidmat dan semoga pengalaman yang dikecapi dapat digunakan di masa hadapan."
[10] The Claimant was unhappy with the termination of h
