AWARD

Vanithanamy Sivalingam:

Reference

[1] This is a reference by Director General of Industrial Relations to this Industrial Court under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("The Act") for an award in respect of the dispute arising out of the alleged termination of Muruges A/L Supramaniam ("the claimant") by his employer The Vanguards Services Sdn Bhd ("company").

[2] This Court takes cognizance of the following bundles, statements, submission and cause papers filed;

DOCUMENTS IN Court FILES

I. Statement of case dated — 27 May 2024

II. Amended Statement in Reply dated — 30 July 2024

III. Rejoinder dated — 23 August 2024

IV. Claimant's Bundle of Document — (CLB1, CLB2, CLB3, CLB4)

V. Company's Bundle of Document — (COB1)

VI. Witness Statement of the claimant — Jaymani A/P Sevanathan (CLWS1)

VII. Witness Statement of the company — Sumadi A/P Nagappan (COWS1)

VIII. Witness Statement of the company — Rosnani Binti Abdul Kader (COWS2)

IX. Company's Written Submission dated — 21 April 2025

X. Claimant's Written Submission

XI. Company's Written Submission in Reply dated — 5 May 2025

XII. Claimant's Written Submission in Reply dated — 6 June 2025

XIII. Company's Bundle of Authorities

The Claimant's Case

[3] The claimant was employed by the company on 1 October 2022 in SK Taman Alam Megah 3 with a basic salary of RM1,500.00 as the security officer. The claimant alleged that the salary was not paid promptly. The gross salary offered was RM2,480.00. The company had never given a proper breakdown of the salary. The unarmed guard's salary should be more than what was offered by the company. The claimant had questioned Rosnani Binti Abdul Kader the Operation Officer ("COW2") with regards to the salary breakdown, but the claimant was unable to get a clear answer from her. The claimant had never been given his pay slip throughout his tenure of employment. The claimant was not notified if the Employees Provident Fund ("EPF") was contributed for the last 10 months the claimant worked with the company. The claimant was ordered to work 12 hours a day without any rest day. In the event the claimant takes leave, the claimant's salary will be deducted RM70.00 per day. The claimant also requested to find replacement on his rest day.

[4] The claimant had worked 24 hours on the days when his colleague was on leave. On 10 March 2023, the claimant and his colleagues were involved directly in the case of his colleague named Ganeswari in the Labour Office ("JTK"). Ganeswari lodged a complaint against the company against the termination and non-payment of salary, EPF and the payslips. As a result, the Labour Officer Ms Faizura called a few of the company's employees for inquiry. The claimant did not intend to lodge a complaint against the company at the material time however the claimant went to the Labour Office just to assist the claim of Ganeswari. The Human Resource Executive of the company Ms Sumadi A/P Nagappan ("COW1") and COW2 was summoned to the Labour Office for inquiry. COW1 then called the claimant and his colleagues who went to the Labour Department and informed them that the company was not happy with their conduct of attending the query.

[5] On 16 March 2023, the claimant received a notice of transfer from the company. He was transferred to the Head Quarters in Kajang effective from 1 April 2023. The claimant and his colleagues went to the office to inform the company that they are not satisfied with the transfer and to plea that the transfer order could be cancelled. COW1 informed the claimant that the transfer was issued due to his conduct of assisting Ganeswari in the claim against the company. The claimant explained to the COW1 that he has nothing to do with the claim or complain.

[6] On 1 April 2023, the claimant and his colleagues wrote a letter to the company to plea against the transfer order. They were of the opinion that the transfer was given in bad faith as a tool to terminate them. The company then suggested to the claimant and his col