Back
2025 MarsdenLR 992
INDUSTRIAL COURT PENANG
KANNAN ELANKIRAN – Appellant
Versus
AIR PRODUCTS MALAYSIA SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 237 Of 2025 [Case No: 18/4-529/23]
The employer must demonstrate just cause for dismissal, which was substantiated by the Claimant's repeated safety violations involving mobile phone use while driving, justifying the termination under Company policies.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Complaint of dismissal - Claimant dismissed for use of mobile phone while driving a Liquid Bulk vehicle, violating Company’s safety policy - Claimant’s defense that he was responding to a call from his pregnant wife was insufficient - Dismissal upheld as just cause found. (Paras 1, 21, 36, 69)
(B) Misconduct - Safety policy violation - Claimant was aware of safety regulations prohibiting mobile phone use while driving - Repeated offenses established - Dismissal deemed appropriate and not disproportionate. (Paras 56, 66, 67)
Facts of the case:
Claimant, employed as a Liquid Bulk Driver, faced dismissal for repeatedly using a mobile phone while driving, despite previous warnings. The Court considered the reasons for his dismissal after a domestic inquiry.
Findings of Court:
The Company proved that dismissal was justified based on repeated misconduct and the critical safety aspect of the position held by the Claimant.
Issues: Whether the Claimant's actions constituted misconduct and justified dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi: Court ruled that the Claimant's misconduct was serious due to safety implications and that dismissal was appropriate based on his prior warnings and established violations.
Result: Claimant's case dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismisal reference and claimant's employment background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. claimant's misconduct in using mobile phone while driving. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. company's safety policies and prior warnings. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. repeated misconduct by the claimant. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 5. role and standard of proof in industrial court. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 6. evidence requirements in domestic inquiry. (Para 25 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 7. justification for mobile phone prohibition. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 8. court's finding on claimant's guilt. (Para 42 , 44 , 46 , 50) |
| 9. court's conclusion on dismissal justification. (Para 51 , 57 , 68) |
| 10. final resolution of the case. (Para 69) |
Reference
[1] This is a reference made on 10 March 2023 by the Director-General of Industrial Relations Department to the Industrial Court of Malaysia under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ('the Act') arising out of the dismissal of Kannan A/L Elankiran (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claimant') by Air Products Malaysia Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'). The Director-General's reference in this case before the Court requires the Court to hear and determine the Claimant's complaint of dismissal by the Company on 21 July 2022.
Brief Background Facts Of The Case
[2] The Claimant's pleaded case, as contained in his Statement of Case dated 25 April 2023, was that he joined the Company as a Driver under a fixed-term contract from 1 January 2019 until 31 December 2019. His last drawn salary as pleaded was RM4,000.00.
[3] The Claimant pleaded and averred that as a driver, his duties were to drive the Liquid Bulk trailer lorries and deliver the Company's products to its customers.
[4] The Claimant averred that he was issued with a show cause letter dated 21 June 2022 by the Company for allegedly using his mobile phone while driving the Company's Liquid Bulk lorry. The Claimant pleaded that he replied to the said show cause via a letter dated 23 June 2022, stating his explanation.
[5] Further, the Claimant pleaded that he was instructed to attend a domestic inquiry on 4 July 2022 and averred that he had explained at the inquiry that he had to answer his wife's phone call on 17 June 2022 because his wife was pregnant at the material time and her expected delivery was due. He also averred that she was alone at home with no one to take care of her.
[6] The Claimant pleaded that he did not deny the said allegation against him and that he had explained the actual situation regarding the condition of his wife.
[7] Thereafter, the Claimant pleaded that he was notified of his dismissal by the Company via letter dated 21 July 2022 and averred that the Company did not consider the reasons which he had stated at the inquiry against him.
[8] On his dismissal by the Company, the Claimant contends that his dismissal was actuated by 'mala fide', an unfair labour practice, and was without just cause or excuse, and hence, pleaded for reinstatement and the other usual reliefs.
[9] The Company, on the other hand, in their Statement of Reply dated 23 August 2023, pleaded that the dismissal of the Claimant was with just cause and excuse in view of his misconduct, wherein there was repetitive violation of the Company's safety policies.
[10] The Company averred that at the time of the dismissal, the Claimant was a Liquid Bulk Driver, and his last drawn salary was RM1,588.75, and his monthly basic salary was RM1,590.00. The Company stated that the Claimant was eligible for allowances and safety incentives, subject to his compliance with the Company's safety requirements. It was pleaded that the Company is a full-service industrial gases company.
[11] Further, the Company pleaded and averred that the Claimant was appointed as a Liquid Bulk Driver on a fixed-term contract basis from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019, based at the Company's Prai Plant, and his duties and responsibilities include the following:
i
