2025 MarsdenLR 4176

INDUSTRIAL COURT MALAYSIA
Rizal Bin Abdul Kadir – Appellant
Versus
Maritime Institute Of Malaysia (MIMA) – Respondent
19/4-491/22

The burden of proof in dismissal cases lies with the employer to establish just cause. Even if misconduct is proven, the sanction must satisfy the doctrine of proportionality, ensuring the punishment is appropriate to the severity of the conduct, guided by the principles of equity, good conscience, and substantial merits.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Sections 20(3), 30(5), 30(5A) - Unfair dismissal - Burden of proof.

(B) Doctrine of proportionality - Duty of Industrial Court to determine if punishment is proportionate to proven misconduct - Dismissal as the capital punishment of industrial relations - Necessity of striking a balance between severity of conduct and sanction.

(C) Reinstatement - As primary remedy for unjust dismissal - Power of Industrial Court to order reinstatement or compensation - Principle of equity, good conscience, and substantial merits.

Facts of the case:
A senior executive was terminated following allegations of financial management irregularities, failure to follow internal board directives, and conflict of interest issues during a period of organizational administrative vacuum. The executive challenged the dismissal, asserting that the alleged procedural deviations were necessary to ensure business operational continuity amidst management inaction.

Findings of Court:
The employer failed to discharge the burden of proving that the dismissal was supported by just cause or excuse. The court found that the executive's actions lacked malicious intent or personal gain, and the alleged misconduct primarily consisted of technical or procedural lapses committed in good faith to resolve an emergency. The dismissal was deemed disproportionate and excessively harsh.

Issues: The main issues were whether the evidence sufficiently established each charge of misconduct and whether the decision to terminate was proportionate, reasonable, and in accordance with the principles of equity and good conscience.

Ratio Decidendi: The legal burden rests on the employer to prove just cause by a preponderance of probabilities. Termination of a long-serving employee for minor procedural errors committed in good faith to maintain operations is manifestly disproportionate. Reinstatement is the primary restorative remedy under industrial law when a dismissal is found to be substantively unfair, unless the employer establishes that such relief is impracticable.

Result: Dismissal set aside; reinstatement ordered with back wages; a 20% deduction applied to back wages for established contributory procedural negligence.