In industrial dismissal cases, the employer carries the legal burden to prove alleged misconduct on a balance of probabilities through cogent evidence. The Industrial Court determines the validity of a dismissal de novo, as internal domestic inquiry findings are not binding upon the court's independent evaluation of the merits.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Dismissal - Just cause or excuse - Burden of proof - The employer bears the burden of producing convincing evidence to establish that the employee committed the alleged misconduct justifying termination (Paras 12, 14).

(B) Domestic Inquiry - Findings of an internal inquiry are not binding upon the court - The Industrial Court serves as an independent statutory tribunal to hear disputes de novo, assessing the evidence on its own merits regardless of prior domestic proceedings (Paras 16, 17, 48).

(C) Evidence - Misconduct allegations must be proven on a balance of probabilities by cogent or corroborating evidence rather than conjecture or surmise - Failure to produce material witnesses or financial documentation to verify allegations of document fabrication and cash mismanagement renders the employer's case unsubstantiated (Paras 46, 53, 62).

Facts of the case:
The claimant, employed in a management position, was dismissed following allegations of fabricating third-party contractor quotations and mismanaging cash deposits collected from residents. The employer further cited a purported false declaration regarding criminal history in the employment application, though the substance of the dismissal centered on alleged professional misconduct and operational violations. The claimant challenged the dismissal as unjustified.

Findings of Court:
The employer failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish misconduct. Witnesses provided inconsistent testimony regarding the submission of the alleged fabricated documents, and the company failed to produce primary financial reports or call necessary witnesses to sustain the claims. The tribunal found that the allegations were based on assumption rather than documented facts.

Issues: Whether the dismissal was with just cause or excuse and whether the employer successfully discharged the burden of proof regarding the cited acts of misconduct.

Ratio Decidendi: The legal standard requires the employer to substantiate claims of misconduct with solid evidence proportionate to the severity of the charges. Without cogent evidence or material witnesses, such allegations constitute mere conjecture, failing to satisfy the requirement for just cause.

Result: Dismissal declared without just cause or excuse; backwages awarded.

REFERENCE :

This is a reference by the Director General of Industrial Relation made under subsection 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 arising out of the dismissal of JAMAL SHAHID GURDIAL BIN ABDULLAH (hereinafter referred to as “the Claimant”) by TRANSPACC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SDN BHD (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”) on 31.03.2023.

AWARD

1) The Claimant was offered the position of Building Manager by the Company vide a letter of offer dated 13.04.2022 on a three (3) months’ fixed term employment contract effective from 05.05.2022 and expiring on 06.08.2022.

2) Pursuant to a Staff Performance Appraisal conducted on the Claimant on 03.08.2022, the Claimant was confirmed in his position as Building Manager effective 04.08.2022 and was given an increment of RM500.00, thereby increasing his monthly salary to RM5,500.00.

3) As the Building Manager of the Company, the Claimant’s job functions includes, but not limited to :

(i) To ensure all cash collections are banked in on daily basis;

(ii) To ensure daily collections are updated daily and accurately according to management format;

(iii) To ensure all collections are banked in within 24 hours from date of collection;

(iv) To ensure administrative clerks update the daily collection into property butler system on daily basis;

(v) To ensure monthly reports are ready 1 week before the monthly meeting;

(vi) To reply to all WhatsApp messages posted by committee members within 10 minutes;

(vii) To attend and reply to all emails on same business day. If unsure of reply, to check with management;

(viii) To update daily on WhatsApp the status of project based on format determined by management;

(ix) To update all tasks regularly on a daily basis into property butler system;

(x) To be responsible for onsite staff’s work conduct, attendance and performance;

(xi) To be in control of all issues affecting the project managed by the manager;

(xii) To ensure working relationship with committee members are smooth and cordial at all times;

(xiii) To ensure all quotations must be referred to operations director before submitting to committee members;

(xiv) To ensure site duties are not affected due to absence or leave application of any site staff; and

(xv) To inform management of any absentees or emergency leave taken by any site staff.

4) On 07.12.2022, the Claimant was instructed to be posted to Case Idaman Condominium (CIC) to be in charge of day to day operational requirements for the Management of CIC.

5) Sometime in February 2023, the Company contends that the Area Manager of CIC had received complaints from the Management Committee that the Claimant had violated the Company’s Standard Operating Procedure ( SOP) relating to cash collection policies and missing properties from CIC management office.

6) The complaints led to the Claimant’s suspension from his duties on 03.03.2023 for two (2) weeks with full pay to facilitate an investigation into the complaints. The Company contends that during a counselling session held on 07.03.2023, the Claimant admitted to improper handling of the cash received from the CIC residents and agreed that his salary for February 2023 be deducted.

7) This was followed by the issuance of a show cause letter to the Claimant by the Company dated 10.03.2023 which contained the following three (3) charges :

1) Improper processes applied, in the course of selecting and recommending third party contractors.

1.1. Quotations received from third party contractors were re-drafted and presented to the MC concerned, which was not accepted, and upon following the SOP to present the same to Transpacc’s Operations Director later, the re-drafted quotations were found to contain discrepancies that tantamount to gross negligence on your part as Building Manager:

a. One of the re-drafted quotations contains full details of the contractor, whilst the rest were submitted without full details, e.g. Company Address, Company Registration No., etc.

b. You signed off on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 MarsdenLR 2470

Login now and unlock premium legal research