Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3468
INDUSTRIAL COURT SARAWAK
AMRAN MAHMUD – Appellant
Versus
SYARIKAT SESCO BERHAD – Respondent
Award No: 1408 of 2025 [Case No: 8/4-1345/24]
A reasonable employer's decision to dismiss an employee for sexual harassment is justified if supported by credible evidence, even in the absence of corroborating witnesses.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Claim for unlawful dismissal - Court finds that the claimant was dismissed by the company following a domestic inquiry where he was found guilty of sexual harassment - The employer bears the burden of proof for just cause in alleged misconduct cases, established by various precedents quoted including Wong Chee Hong v. Cathay Organisation Malaysia Sdn Bhd and others - Evidence presented indicated clear misconduct warranting dismissal. (Paras 1, 17, 78, 124)
(B) Sexual Harassment - Legal duty of an employer to prove reasonable grounds for dismissal due to sexual harassment - An absence of corroboration does not defeat a complaint if the testimony of the victim is credible. (Paras 27, 60, 92)
(C) Reasonableness of Dismissal - The standard applied is whether a reasonable employer would find the dismissal appropriate under the circumstances. (Paras 119, 121)
(D) Witness Credibility - The delayed reporting of incidents does not negate the credibility of a complaint, provided the victim offers justifiable explanations for the delay. (Paras 56, 70, 124)
Facts of the case:
The claimant was employed as a Power Plant Operator and was dismissed for alleged sexual harassment of a colleague after a domestic inquiry found sufficient grounds for the dismissal. The incidents included inappropriate physical and verbal conduct towards the employee.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the employer's dismissal of the claimant as justified and within the bounds of a reasonable employer's discretion, following a careful assessment of evidence.
Issues: Whether the company had just cause for dismissing the claimant given the allegations of misconduct related to sexual harassment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the alleged misconduct was serious enough to justify dismissal, ruling that credibility and reasonableness of the employer's decision were key factors, and highlighted the nature of sexual harassment as being serious under the company's zero-tolerance policy.
Result: Claim dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for unlawful dismissal. (Para 1 , 1 , 2) |
| 2. documents and evidence established. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. detailed facts of the claimant's employment. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. standard of proof in employment misconduct. (Para 17 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. fiduciary nature of employer-employee relationship. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. details of charges against the claimant. (Para 25 , 26) |
| 7. standards regarding sexual harassment. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 8. cow2’s testimony supports allegations. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 9. claimant’s denial and defense. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 10. court's findings on just cause. (Para 55 , 60 , 61) |
| 11. court's conclusion on dismissal validity. (Para 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 124) |
[1] This is an order of reference dated 25 October 2024 by the Director General of Industrial Relations Department pursuant to s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 arising out of the alleged dismissal of Amran Bin Mahmud (the claimant) by Syarikat Sesco Berhad (the respondent) on 1 August 2024.
Introduction
[2] This is a claim for unlawful dismissal of the claimant against the respondent ("the company") without just cause or excuse.
The Documents
[3] The pleadings, documents and witness statements that have been relied on by the parties are as follows:
a) Statement of Case dated 30 November 2024;
b) Statement in Reply dated 19 December 2024;
c) Rejoinder dated 30 December 2024;
d) Amended Statement in Reply dated 22 May 2025;
e) Claimant's Rejoinder dated 29 May 2025;
f) The Company's Bundle of Documents — COB1;
g) The Company's Supplementary Bundle of Documents No 2 — COB2;
h) The Company's Supplementary Bundle of Documents No 3 — COB3;
i) The Claimant's Bundle of Documents — CLB1;
j) Witness statement of Nur Arina binti Abdul Hadi (COW1);
k) Witness statement of Nur Izzati Binti Abdullah (COW2);
l) Witness statement of Abdul Hanif bin Moh (COW3);
m) Witness statement of Meme anak Langie (COW4); and
n) Witness statement of Syarifah Khadijah binti Wan Ali (COW5).
[4] The company has called the following witnesses:
a) Nur Arina binti Abdul Hadi (COW1).
b) Nur Izzati Binti Abdullah (COW2).
c) Abdul Hanif bin Moh (COW3).
d) Meme anak Langie (COW4).
e) Syarifah Khadijah binti Wan Ali (COW5).
[5] The claimant was the sole witness who testified in court to prove his case.
[6] At the outset of the hearing, the parties indicated that all the documents meant to be used during the hearing were agreed as to the authenticity and content.
Brief Facts Of The Case
[7] In our case, the claimant joined the company on 20 November 1997, as a Power Plant Operator on a contract basis and he was stationed at Power Station in Song. He was confirmed on his post effective 1 October 2003.
[8] Via a letter dated 9 February 2024, the employer of COW2 informed the company of sexual harassment done by the claimant to COW2.
[9] Via a letter dated 1 March 2024, the company informed the claimant of his suspension from his duty pending investigation of an allegation of serious misconduct against him.
[10] Thereafter, a show cause letter was issued to the claimant.
[11] Via a letter dated 13 March 2024, the claimant sought an extension of time to provide his explanation to the show cause letter. This was allowed by the company.
[12] The claimant then via a letter dated 23 March 2024 gave his explanation.
[13] Via a letter dated 15 April 2024, signed by Hasanah Binti Haji Abdullah Senior Manager II, the company informed the claimant of a domestic inquiry ("the DI") to be held on 29 and 30 April 2024 in respect of the alleged misconduct.
[14] Based on the finding of the DI, the panel of inquiries found that on a balance of the probabilities, there were reasonable grounds that all the charges were committed by the claimant. He was found guilty of all the charges.
[15] On 31 July 2024, the Disciplinary Committee ("the DC") which convened its meeting on 29 July 2024, after considering relevant details, decided that the misconduct c
