JUDGMENT

Azizan Md Arshad J:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the decision delivered by this Court on 12 June 2025 by the Company (Appellant) against the decision of the Industrial Court ("IC") dated 5 February 2025 in Case No 9/4-1356/22. (Award No 188 of 2025 - "the Award")[Muhd Irfan Sani Rashid v. Malaysia Airports Sdn Bhd (LTAB Langkawi)]

[2] The appeal of the appellant is partially granted concerning wages, as the deduction from back wages due to contributory conduct, which was set at 10% in the IC's ruling in Award No 188 of 2025, was increased to 30%. Other IC decisions are affirmed and upheld with no order as to costs.

[3] The issue at hand concerns the appellant's termination of the respondent's employment on 14 December 2021, which the IC found unjustified and the dismissal was without just cause or excuse.

[4] Throughout this judgment (unless otherwise stated), the parties are referred to as they were in the IC.

Cause Papers

[5] This Court has considered the following cause papers and documents, namely:

(i) the claimant's statement of Case dated 22 November 2022;

(ii) the company Statement of Reply dated 5 January 2023;

(iii) the claimant's Witness Statement "CLWS-1"); and

(iv) The Company's Witness Statement:

(a) Mazlan Bin Fauzi marked as "COW1"; and

(b) Husna Shafini Binti Abdul marked as COW2"

(v) Industrial Court Award No 188 of 2025 dated 5 February 2025

Cause of Action

[6] In the Statement of Case, the claimant avers that:

(a) On 13 December 2021, the company dismissed the claimant with effect from 14 December 2021 on the alleged breach of the Company's COVID-19 Vaccination policy;

(b) The dismissal was contrary to the collective agreement, natural justice, and laws;

(c) The company acted discriminatorily, arbitrarily and unreasonably by enforcing the Company's COVID-19 vaccination policy without validation and also by refusing to bear the expenses;

(d) The claimant has five small children and his wife is a housewife. He also must look after his elderly mother and

settle other financial liabilities;

(e) The balance net pay is not sufficient to pay for the twice weekly COVID-19 tests;

(f) The Company is aware of the financial circumstances of the claimant but chooses to impose the costs of the COVID-19 tests on the claimant causing him to default;

(g) The conduct of the company in shifting the expenses of the COVID-19 tests caused extreme hardship to the claimant;

(h) Apart from the dispute on the payment of COVID-19 tests, the claimant enjoyed a cordial relationship with the company and its staff;

(i) His physical interaction with other staff is minimal and he was never a health threat to other staff, and he has taken all precautions not to contact COVID-19;

j) The company has condoned the action of the claimant by abandoning the earlier disciplinary proceedings; and

(k) The claimant worked for over 8 years with an unblemished record before the termination and never had any problems with his work performance or health; and

(l) The claimant did not commit any misconduct to warrant a dismissal.

Statement In Reply

[7] In Statement in Reply, the company avers that:

(a) The company had implemented a flexible working arrangement as a measure to safeguard the health and safety of its employees by implementing, such work-from-home arrangements and/or extended flexible working hours;

(b) Sometime in August 2021, the MAHB Corporate Crisis Management Team (CCMT) decided the employees who were fully vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus would be allowed entry into the company's premises, individuals, including employees and/or the party contractors, who refused or were not vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus will be required to undergo COVID-19 screening (e via Rapid Test Kit Antigen (RTK-Ag) or a Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test;

(c) On 8 September 2021, the Group CEO held a town hall session with the employees within the MAHB Group, the company will be slowly transitioning back to reopening its operations;

(d) Employees under nor