Back
2026 MarsdenLR 4
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA
CASE NO: 7/4-120/23
BETWEEN
SUZLIZA BINTI KAHAR
AND
PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN TERATAI MEWAH APARTMENT S5-S6
AWARD NO: 256 OF 2026
BEFORE : Y.A. PUAN VANITHAMANY SIVALINGAM
- Chairman
VENUE : Industrial Court of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.
DATE OF REFERENCE : 09.01.2023.
DATES OF MENTION : 13.02.2023 & 27.01.2026.
DATES OF HEARING : 29.11.2023, 06.12.2024, 22.05.2025, 11.06.2025 & 25.06.2025.
REPRESENTATION :
Mr. Alfred Iruthiarajoo
Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC)
(Representative for the Claimant)
Mr. Mohd Noor Bin Omar, Secretary
(Representative for the Company)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Alfred Iruthiarajoo Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC)
For the Respondents: Mr. Mohd Noor Bin Omar, Secretary
Employer must prove employee misconduct on balance of probabilities for just dismissal; unsubstantiated allegations despite employee contributory conduct result in unfair dismissal finding and compensation award.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Sections 20(3), 30(5), 30(6A) and Second Schedule - Unfair dismissal reference - Employer bears burden to prove misconduct on balance of probabilities for just cause or excuse - Failure to hold domestic inquiry curable by Industrial Court rehearing - Adverse inference against employer for not calling material witness - Dismissal unfair if allegations unsubstantiated despite employee not coming with clean hands - Compensation in lieu of reinstatement with deductions for contributory conduct, post-dismissal earnings. (Paras [9]-[35])
(B) Misconduct - Defined as deliberate conduct inconsistent with faithful discharge of duties - Requires convincing evidence from employer - Standard of proof on balance of probabilities even for dishonesty - Domestic inquiry findings not binding on Industrial Court. (Paras [10], [12], [15]-[17])
Facts of the case:
Employee employed as administration clerk from 2019 with salary increments to RM2,285. New management issued show cause letter for insubordination, false information, hiding accounts, unwarranted behavior; suspended 7 days, terminated shortly after without full domestic inquiry. Employer alleged rudeness, job scope refusal, accounts concealment, system manipulation. Employee denied misconduct, claimed bare allegations and procedural flaws.
Findings of Court:
Dismissal without just cause or excuse. Back wages of 24 months (RM54,840) less 12 months post-dismissal earnings (RM27,420 deduction), compensation 3 months' pay (RM6,855), less 30% contributory conduct (RM10,282.50 deduction), total RM23,992.50 payable within 30 days after deductions.
Issues: (a) whether misconduct complained of established; (b) whether misconduct warranted dismissal with just cause and excuse?
Ratio Decidendi: Employer failed to prove allegations like rudeness, job tampering, accounts hiding, manipulation on balance of probabilities; video showed cooperation, no witnesses for complaints, defective show cause lacked details; suspicions raised earlier but unsubstantiated; employee demeanor suggested not clean hands but burden unmet.
Result: Claim allowed.
REFERENCE
This is a reference by the Director General of Industrial Relations to this Industrial Court under Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (“The Act”) arising out of the alleged unlawful termination of SUZLIZA BINTI KAHAR (“the Claimant”) by her employer, PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN TERATAI MEWAH APARTMENT S5-S6 (“the Company”)
This Court takes cognizance of the following bundles, statements, submission, and cause papers filed.
DOCUMENTS IN COURT FILES
I. Statement of Case dated – 06.03.2023
II. Statement of Reply dated – 20.12.2023
III. Rejoinder dated – 05.01.2024
IV. Claimant’s Bundle of Document - (CLB 1)
V. Company’s Bundle of Document - (COB 1)
VI. Witness Statement of the Claimant – SUZLIZA BINTI KAHAR (CLWS1)
VII. Witness Statement of the Company – A J THOMAS A/L JOSEPH (COWS1)
VIII. Witness Statement of the Company – CALVIN ANGELUS KODAU (COWS2)
IX. Witness Statement of the Company – MOHD NOOR BIN OMAR (COWS3)
X. Witness Statement of the Company – SOFFIAN TAN (COWS4)
XI. Claimant’s Written Submission dated 28.08.2025
XII. Company’s Written Submission dated 22.08.2025
XIII. Claimant’s Written Submission in Reply dated 12.09.2025
XIV. Company’s Written Submission in Reply dated 29.10.2025
XV. Claimant’s Bundle of Authorities
BRIEF FACTS
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE
[ 1 ] The Claimant joined the Company on 1.4.2019 as Administration Clerk with a salary of RM 1,500.00 and a fixed allowance of RM 200.00. On 1.8.2019, the Claimant was confirmed in her position with an increment of RM 300.00. Her salary was increased to RM 2,000.00. On 1.1.2022, a salary increment of RM 285.00 was given which made her last drawn salary RM 2,285.00 with a fixed allowance of RM 150.00.
[ 2 ] During her tenure, the Claimant avers that she had never received any complaint from the Management Committee (“the Company”) or from the occupants of the apartment. On 13.7.2022, the newly selected Secretary, Mr. Mohd Noor Bin Omar (“secretary /COW3”) and the Chairman Mr. A J Thomas a/l Joseph (“Chairman / COW1”) called for a meeting with the Claimant. The Chairman served a show cause letter backdated to 8.7.2022, to the Claimant in the meeting. The allegations stated in the show cause letter lacks details. The Claimant demanded details of the allegations however the Chairman and the secretary refused to give details and demanded the Claimant to reply to the show cause letter within 7 days failing which a disciplinary action will be taken against the Claimant. The Claimant was suspended for 7 days.
[ 3 ] The Claimant avers that she never had an issue with the Management Committee until it was taken over by the newly elected members who has taken over the position in April 2022. The Claimant replied to the show cause letter on 18.7.2022. On 21.7.2022, when the Claimant resumed work after the 7 days suspension, the Company called her into the office and issued a termination letter. The Claimant was devastated to receive a termination letter.
[ 4 ] The Company failed to conduct a Domestic Inquiry (“DI”) and the termination was done with malafide and the Company had breached of the fundamental principle of natural justice.
THE COMPANY’S CASE
[ 5 ] The Company avers that the Claimant’s letter of offer was dated 1.5.2019. The Company disagrees with the Claimant’s salary and her allowance stated. The Company also stated that the Claimant did not have a good performance record from the former Management Committee. As a result, Mr. Cavin (“COW2”) had to introduce the punch card in the office. The occupants of the apartment had voice out lot of grievance and complaints against the Claimant to the Chairman. The Chairman and the secretary had witnessed the Claimant’s behavior of rudeness, arrogance and poor performances. The Claimant was in charge of issuing the car sticker and the Claimant issued the car stickers to the occupants of the apartment without compliance with the Rules 2009.
[ 6 ] The Claimant was called in for a meeting on 13.7.2022, however the Management
