Back
2021 MarsdenLR 3191
HIGH COURT (MUAR)
Bimach Powerhouse Sdn Bhd – Plaintiff
Versus
Sanizal bin Mahamad – Defendant
CIVIL APPEAL NO JB-16-7-11 OF 2020
Kavitha a/p Guna Segaran (Paramjit Singh a/l Pretam Singh with her) (GS Kavitha) for the appellant.
Mohd Radzi bin Yatiman (Azlina Ruslan & Co) for the respondent.
This case reinforces the necessity of conducting a fair inquiry before termination, asserting that non-compliance with employment laws makes dismissals void.
Headnote:(A) Employment Act 1955 - Section 14(1) - Appeal against dismissal decision - Appellant ordered to pay RM5,000.00 as compensation for failing to conduct a due inquiry prior to termination - Principles of natural justice violated - Importance of fair hearing emphasized. (Paras 1, 18, 56, 149)
(B) Natural Justice - Audi alteram partem - Requirement for a fair hearing upheld - Failure to provide adequate opportunity for response renders dismissal void - Relevant statutory safeguards must be observed. (Paras 75, 85, 102)
(C) Original vs. Appellate Jurisdiction - Distinction clarified; High Court exercising its original jurisdiction over statutory bodies' decisions - Appeal process addressed under specific rules. (Paras 73, 84, 150)
Facts of the case:
Respondent, initially employed under a contract, faced termination for alleged misconduct without due inquiry. Appellant's non-compliance with statutory requirements led to the Labour Department's ruling in favor of Respondent.
Findings of Court:
Director-General's order upheld, emphasizing the need for due process under the Employment Act.
Issues: The case addressed whether proper procedures were followed in employment termination, particularly regarding inquiries and the employee's right to a fair hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that due inquiry is a necessary legal requirement for terminations under the Employment Act, reinforcing employees' rights to fair treatment.
Result: Appeal dismissed; original decision affirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the appeal process. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background of the employment and dismissal. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 16) |
| 3. details of employment contract and termination notice. (Para 7 , 13 , 19) |
| 4. procedures followed prior to termination. (Para 14 , 15 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. analysis of due process and natural justice. (Para 20 , 30 , 39) |
Awg Armadajaya Awg Mahmud JC:
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENTINTRODUCTION
[1]This is an appeal against the decision of the Director-General of the Labour Department, Malaysia given on 5 November 2020 in Segamat whereby the Director-General ruled that the Appellant is to pay the Respondent the sum of RM5,000-00 as compensation in lieu of termination notice.
[2]The cause papers are as follows:
i.The Notice of Appeal (Enclosure 1).
ii.Appeal Record (Enclosure 4).
iii.Supplementary Appeal Record (Enclosure 5).
iv.Additional Appeal Record (Enclosure 12).
BACKGROUND FACTS
[3]The Appellant (who is the Defendant in the proceedings before the Director-General, Labour Department) is a company incorporated in Malaysia pursuant to the Companies Act 1965 . The Appellant runs 2 shops selling tyres and other car parts in Segamat including BPH Tyre Taman Eastern Shop where the Respondent was working prior to 1 September 2019. After 1 September 2019, the Respondent was directed to serve at BPH Tyre Taman Yayasan Shop (“the said Shop”) until 21 January 2020.
[4]The Appellant has 10 staff working for him in both establishments.
[5]The Respondent is a natural person and he was a staff of the Appellant.
[6]Initially in April 2019, the Respondent was offered a temporary contract of employment as a Technical Specialist for a period of 3 months. The Respondent performed well during the period and he was extended and offered a permanent contract vide a Letter of Offer dated 20 July 2019. (Appeal Record 01-102 (Enclosure 4).
[7]The Respondent was paid a basic salary of RM1, 800-00 a month and an Attendance Allowance of RM700-00 a month. The Respondent is only entitled to the full sum of RM700-00 if he reports for duty and with full attendance and punctually throughout the month.
[8]The respondent was shown and explained the Employees Handbook (“the said Handbook”) by the Appellant’s finance executive, Ms Gan Jing Yi. The Respondent was informed that he is subjected to the said Handbook. The duties of a Technical Specialist are as follows:
i.To manage and oversee the overall operation of the shop and to ensure the business operations were carried out properly;
ii.To ensure the opening of the shop and related activities are done on time;
iii.To calculate the quantity of stock of goods and record the tally in the UBS inventory system once a week by ensuring the quantity of the same matches the stock ordered and shipped by the supplier;
iv.To ensure that the stocks are arranged at the location provided for and are kept in good condition;
v.To ensure that the other employees performed their daily task properly;
vi.To provide the appropriate and relevant training to employees in performing their respective duties;
vii.To serve the customers well;
viii.To repair the customers’ car; and
ix.To perform and comply with work instructions given by immediate superior.
[9]Vide a letter dated 17 January 2020 (“the 1st warning letter”), the Respondent was given a warning for failing to comply with the Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”) practiced at said Shop. The Respondent was required to take photographs to show that the said Shop was ready for business operation and send the photographs, by using the mobile telephone provided by the said Shop, to Ms Gan via a WhatsApp Group Chat known as the “Family BPH Tire Taman Yayasan” (“the WhatsApp Group”).
[10]On the dates stated in the 1st warning letter, the Respondent allegedly failed to comply with the SOP inspite of repeated reminders in the WhatsApp Group.
[11]In January 2020, the Appellant conducted an investigation at the said Shop and found that the stock of goods, for the period between 1 N
