SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 466

INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
CHAN CHEONG SING – Appellant
Versus
SRI JELUTUNG PALM OIL MILL SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 1400 of 2025 [Case No: 12/4-526/24]



Petitioner Advocates:Muhammad Hasanuddin Mohd Yusoff,Syairah Atiqah Mustaffa Bakri ,Respondent Advocate: Nicole Ng Peng Ying,Nur Syahirah Mohd Fauzi

AWARD

Chow Siew Lin:

Reference

[1] This is a reference from the Director General of Industrial Relations Malaysia pursuant to s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("The Act") in respect of the dismissal of Chan Cheong Sing ("the claimant") by Sri Jelutung Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd ("the company") on 29 September 2023.

[2] This court had considered all the notes of proceedings, documents, cause papers, submissions and bundles of authorities in handing down this award, namely:

(i) the claimant's statement of case dated 15 July 2024 ("SOC");

(ii) the company's statement in reply dated 22 August 2024 ("SIR");

(iii) the claimant's statement of rejoinder dated 5 September 2024 ("Rejoinder");

(iv) the claimant's bundle of documents ("CLB");

(v) the company's bundle of documents ("COB");

(vi) the claimant's witness statement (Chan Cheong Sing) dated 13 February 2025 ("CLWS-1");

(vii) the company's witness statement (Nurul Najwa Anuar) dated 13 February 2025 ("COWS-1");

(viii) the company's witness statement (Gan Chee Yong) dated 13 February 2025 ("COWS-2");

(ix) the claimant's written submission dated 10 May 2025 ("claimant's submission") and the claimant's bundle of authorities ("CL BOA");

(x) the claimant's submission in reply dated 30 May 2025 ("claimant's reply-1") and the claimant's bundle of authorities 2 ("CL BOA-2");

(xi) the claimant's additional submission in reply dated 5 June 2025 ("claimant's reply-2") and the claimant's bundle of authorities 3 ("CL BOA-3");

(xii) the company's written submission dated 10 May 2025 ("company's submission") and the company's bundle of authorities ("CO BOA");

(xiii) the company's written submission in reply dated 30 May 2025 ("company's reply") and the company's bundle of authorities 2 ("CO BOA-2"); and

(xiv) the notes of proceedings ("NOP").

Facts Of The Case

[3] In his SOC, the claimant pleaded, inter alia, as follows:

(a) the claimant commenced employment with the company on 1 January 2018 with the job position of Production Manager;

(b) the claimant last held the position of Acting Senior Manager, Mill with a basic monthly salary of RM6,500.00 together with an allowance of RM2,500.00;

(c) the claimant was issued a show cause letter dated 4 September 2023 ("the Show Cause Letter") by the company, wherein the company alleged that the claimant had committed a series of misconduct that violated the company's rules and regulations and/or its express and implied terms and conditions of employment. The relevant excerpt of the Show Cause Letter is reproduced below for easy reference:

"It is alleged that you have committed an act of misconduct which violates the company's rules and regulations and/or its express and implied terms and conditions of employment as follows:

1. That you while discharging your duties as an Acting Senior Manager, Mill had been found to abuse the authority given to you when you had instructed a foreign worker to stand at the weighbridge area between 10.00am to 12.00pm with a placard on him that says "Saya pemalas. Saya buat kerja tak ikut SOP". Your action can be interpreted as a form of public shaming and a violation of an employee's dignity.

2. That you while still in your duties as an Acting Senior Manager, Mill had been purportedly threatening your staff that they would be terminated once the new management takes over the Mill. It has also been known to all that the criteria for the dismissal are solely based on your judgment whether they are on your side or on the side of Hj. Azahar Bin Kamaruddin — Chief Operating Officer, Palm Oil whereas the decision for the dismissal following the acquisitions is entirely up to the new management.

3. That you on 11 August 2023, Friday, had terminated the canteen operator on 24-hour notice without any arrangements as a backup plan to facilitate the foreign workers in preparing their meals. You too did not give any chance to the canteen operator to clear up the raw material and cooking ingredients despite knowing that the operator had recently stocked u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top