Back
2025 MarsdenLR 2868
INDUSTRIAL COURT KOTA KINABALU
RAHIM LATUO – Appellant
Versus
FGV REFINERIES SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 350 Of 2025 [Case No: 17/4-136/23]
The employer bears the burden of proving misconduct to justify dismissal, and a fair process must be adhered to, aligning the punishment with the seriousness of the offense.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Dismissal of employee for serious misconducts involving receipt of money without proper documentation - Domestic Inquiry conducted, claimant pleaded guilty - Court emphasized the employer's burden of proof for just cause or excuse for dismissal. (Paras 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, 80)
(B) Double standard in application of company policies - Claimant asserted victimization; however, the court found consistent adherence to company policies and fair process in dismissal. (Paras 26, 59, 78)
(C) Proportionality of punishment - Dismissal upheld as just and lawful given the serious nature of misconduct and breach of fiduciary duty. (Paras 58, 70, 79)
Facts of the case:
The case involves the dismissal of an employee for misconduct relating to financial mismanagement, where he received significant sums from a canteen operator without proper documentation for related purchases. The claimant admitted to the charges during the Domestic Inquiry.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed that the employer fulfilled their procedural obligations and that the dismissal was justified. The claimant's arguments against the dismissal were not substantiated by evidence.
Issues: The primary issues involved whether the dismissal was lawful and with just cause, the validity of charges against the claimant, and the proportionality of the punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the company demonstrated sufficient evidence of misconduct and adhered to fair procedures, thus the dismissal was proportionate and justified.
Result: Claimant's claim dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. reference regarding the dismissal process. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. details of allegations and inquiry findings. (Para 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 3. arguments from both claimant and company. (Para 11 , 24 , 26 , 27) |
| 4. burden of proof in dismissal cases. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. issues for determination. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 6. validity and implications of domestic inquiry. (Para 38 , 39 , 60) |
| 7. proportionality of punishment concept. (Para 57 , 65 , 70) |
| 8. final conclusions regarding the dismissal's legitimacy. (Para 79 , 80 , 81) |
A. Reference
[1] This is a reference by the Director General of Industrial Relations Malaysia of Human Resources under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("the IRA 1967") arising out of the dismissal of Rahim Bin Latuo (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") by FGV Refineries Sdn Bhd (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 29 December 2012.
[3] The Claimant commenced his employment with the Company as a Clerk 2 December 1996 and based at Sahabat Oil Products (hereinafter referred to as SOP).
[4] This present case relates specifically on the alleged misconducts of receiving money from the canteen operator of the Company by the Claimant during his employment as Financial Clerk at SOP.
[5] Consequently, a Show Court letter dated 7 September 2020 was issued against the Claimant which stated that the Claimant had allegedly committed two serious misconducts. Vide a letter to the Company dated 11 September 2020, the Claimant replied to said Show Cause Letter.
[6] After reviewing the Claimant's reply to the show cause letter, the Company issued a letter of "Pertuduhan Bagi Maksud Menguruskan Tindakan Tatatertib" dated 2 November 2021 to the Claimant and decided to conduct a Domestic Inquiry in order to provide the Claimant an opportunity to further render his explanation before an independent Panel of Inquiry. The Company also notified the Claimant that he was suspended from work for 14 days from 3 November 2021 to 16 November 2021.
[7] The allegation of misconducts against the Claimant are as follows:
1st Charge - The Claimant had on 21 December 2020 until 30 April 2016 received money amounting to RM11,500.00 from the canteen operator, Puan Yan @ 0m Bte Salleh, where the said money was requested by the Claimant, and the said money was transferred into the Claimant's personal bank account via online transaction.
2nd Charge - The Claimant had on 17 September 2015 until 3 June 2016 used the money received from the canteen operator to purchase gifts for SOP's visitors which was not according to the Company's policy and without having a complete transaction record.
[8] The Claimant attended the Domestic Inquiry on 10 November 2021. He pleaded guilty to the 1st and 2nd Charges. After the conclusion of the Domestic Inquiry, the panel of Domestic Inquiry found the Claimant guilty to the both charges. Based on the Domestic Inquiry Panel Record dated 10 November 2021 [Exhibit COB(15-22)], the said panel had decided that the Claimant is indeed guilty for requesting and receiving money from the canteen operator, and for using the said money without having a complete transaction record;
[9] The Company decided to terminate the Claimant's employment with immediate effect vide a Letter of Dismissal dated 29 December 2021 which inter alia stated that:
"Jawatankuasa Tindakan Tatatertib yang bersidang pada 23 Disember 2021 telah menyemak dan meneliti segala rekod, dokumen yang berkaitan dengan kes saudara. Pihak pengurusan telah mengambil maklum cadangan yang diberikan oleh Jawatankuasa Siasatan Dalaman dan dengan ini pihak pengurusan mengambil keputusan untuk menjatuhkan hukuman DISINGKIRKAN kepada saudara berkuatkuasa mulai 29 Disember 2021......saudara adalah berhak membuat rayuan untuk dipertimbangkan semula hukuman yang telah dikenakan k
