Back
2025 MarsdenLR 4352
MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN SARAWAK
CHEANG KUM HONG LWN. PRECISE FABRICATION SYSTEMS SDN BHD
Award No: 450 Tahun 2025 [Kes No: 8(5)/4-2876/21]
The employer failed to prove dismissal was just and proper, emphasizing the necessity of following fair procedures in employment dismissals.
Headnote:(A) Employment Relations Act 1967 - Section 20 - Dismissal of employee - Court's role in determining fairness of dismissal based on evidence of misconduct and whether just cause existed - Determination of whether dismissal was based on just cause is paramount (Paras 3, 4, 5, 6).
(B) Fairness in dismissal procedures - Employer must prove dismissal was based on fair reasons and follow proper procedures, including domestic inquiries (Paras 40, 43, 44).
(C) Burden of proof - On a balance of probabilities, the employer must establish grounds for dismissal (Paras 6, 23, 39).
(D) Reinstatement considerations - Factors in deciding reinstatement include employee's conduct and duration since dismissal (Paras 51, 52).
Facts of the case:
The claimant was dismissed on 13 April 2021, with claims of wrongful dismissal asserted following lack of fair procedures and contract evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the employer failed to prove the justification of dismissal and entitles the claimant to back wages for 24 months.
Issues: Whether the dismissal was justified and followed fair procedures, and the implications of the lack of documentation and notification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the employer did not establish misconduct sufficient to justify dismissal, citing procedural irregularities and lack of evidence (Paras 39, 56).
Result: Claimant's claim granted; back wages awarded.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. role of the industrial court in dismissals (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. witnesses called during the hearing (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. facts surrounding the dismissal of the claimant (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. court's findings on the claims of misconduct (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 5. right to be heard in domestic inquiry (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 6. remedies available for unfair dismissal (Para 44 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 7. conclusion and order granted by the court (Para 56 , 57 , 58) |
[1] Ini adalah satu rujukan bertarikh 20 Oktober 2021 oleh Ketua Pengarah Perhubungan Perusahaan, Malaysia di bawah s 20(3) Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967 , mengenai pembuangan kerja Cheang Kum Hong (dirujuk sebagai "yang menuntut") oleh Precise Fabrication Systems Sdn Bhd (Pihak Syarikat) pada 13 April 2021.
Mukadimah
[2] Pengerusi yang terdahulu yang telah mendengar pendengaran kes ini iaitu YA Tuan Ahmad Zakhi Bin Mohd Daud telah bersara. Oleh itu mahkamah ini telah diarahkan untuk memperturunkan awad ini.
Undang-Undang
[3] Peranan Mahkamah Perusahaan di dalam menangani kes-kes pembuangan kerja di dalam rujukan yang dibuat di bawah s 20 Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967 antara lain adalah untuk memastikan sama ada proses pembuangan tersebut dilakukan atas sebab atau alasan yang adil seperti mana yang telah diputuskan dalam kes Wong Chee Hong v. Cathay Organisation Malaysia Sdn Bhd ; ; [1988] 1 MLJ 92 ; [1988] 1 CLJ (Rep) 298 : "When the Industrial Court is dealing with a reference under s 20, the first thing that the Court will have to do is to ask itself a question whether there was a dismissal, and if so, whether it was with or without just cause or excuse."
[4] Mahkamah tertinggi negara pula dalam kes Milan Auto Sdn Bhd v. Wong Seh Yen ; [1995] 4 CLJ 449 ; [1996] 1 AMR 049 menyatakan: "... the function of the Industrial Court in dismissal cases on reference under s 20 is two fold, firstly, to determine whether the misconduct complained of by the employer has been established and secondly whether the proven misconduct constitutes just cause or excuse for the dismissal."
[5] Selain daripada itu peranan Mahkamah Perusahaan juga telah dinyatakan olehMahkamah Persekutuan di dalam kes Wong Yuen Hock v. Syarikat Hong Leong Assurance Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal ; [1995] 3 CLJ 344 ; [1995] 2 AMR 2145 di mana Mahkamah tertinggi negara ini telah memutuskan seperti berikut: "On the authorities, we were of the view that the main and only function of the Industrial Court in dealing with a reference under s 20 of the Act is to determine whether the misconduct or irregularities complained of by the management as the grounds of dismissal were in fact committed by the workman, and if so, whether such grounds constitute just cause or excuse for the dismissal."
[6] Mahkamah dalam memutuskan sesuatu kes hendaklah memastikan bahawa majikan telah berjaya membuktikan pembuangan kerja dibuat berasaskan sebab atau alasan yang adil, atas imbangan kebangkalian (on a balance of probabilities): lihat Industrial Relations in Malaysia: Law & Practice, penulis Dr Dunstan Ayadurai. Lihat juga Telekom Malaysia Kawasan Utara v. Krishnan Kutty Sanguni Nair & Anor ; ; ; .
Saksi
[7] Pihak syarikat telah memanggil saksi-saksi seperti berikut:
a) Loi Lai Peng (COW1);
b) Johnson Lee Kah Wei (COW2); dan
c) Angeline Lee Ai Leng (COW3).
[8] Manakala, yang menuntut hanya mengemukakan satu saksi iaitu dirinya sendiri.
Dokumen
[9] Selain daripada keterangan saksi, kedua-dua pihak telah memfailkan dokumen-dokumen berikut sebagai panduan dan rujukan sepanjang perbicaraan ini:
a) Pernyataan Kes bertarikh 19 Februari 2022;
b) Pernyataan Balas bertarikh 16 Disember 2022;
c) Rejoinder bertarikh 7 Mei 2022;
d) Ikatan Dokumen Yang Menuntut masing-masing ditanda CLB-1, CLB-2 dan CLB-3; dan
e) Ikatan Dokumen Syarikat masing-masing ditanda COB1 dan COB2.
Fakta Ringkas Kes
[10] Yang menu
