2025 MarsdenLR 4778

INDUSTRIAL COURT MALAYSIA
Adler Bin Hilary Laisak – Appellant
Versus
Samsung Engineering (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. – Respondent
8/4-640/24

An employer is strictly bound by its pleadings in dismissal cases and must justify termination solely on stated grounds. Failure to provide procedural fairness via a show-cause process, coupled with an inability to substantiate claims through evidence or produce material witnesses, renders a dismissal without just cause.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Unfair dismissal - Burden of proof - Just cause or excuse.

(B) Pleadings - Industrial Court must strictly confine itself to the issues within the four walls of the pleadings - Employer cannot rely on unpleaded grounds during trial to justify dismissal - The court must scrutinize whether the specific reasons stated in the termination letter were proven. (Paras 28-39).

(C) Natural Justice - Importance of procedural fairness - Necessity for a show-cause letter in cases of alleged serious misconduct to afford the employee an opportunity to be heard - Lack of a domestic inquiry makes it imperative to follow fair procedural steps. (Paras 45-50, 63).

(D) Burden of Proof - Employer bears the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the dismissal was with just cause - Failure to call key witnesses to support allegations justifies the drawing of an adverse inference. (Paras 11, 80). (E) Remedies - Entitlement to backwages for the remainder of a fixed-term employment contract - Duty to mitigate loss through gainful employment elsewhere rests with the employer to prove. (Paras 85, 90-95).

Facts of the case:
An employee on a fixed-term contract was dismissed for alleged dishonesty, medical unfitness, and false declarations regarding job skills. The employer failed to issue a show-cause letter or conduct a domestic inquiry prior to termination. During the hearing, the employer attempted to introduce additional grounds for dismissal that were not formally pleaded, while failing to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the primary reasons stated in the termination letter.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the employer was bound by its pleadings; hence, new grounds not stated in the termination letter were disregarded. The employer failed to establish the alleged misconduct or prove that the medical condition rendered the employee permanently unfit for duty. Furthermore, the absence of a show-cause letter and the failure to present key witnesses led the court to conclude that the dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair.

Issues: Whether the dismissal of the employee constituted an act of unlawful termination without just cause or excuse, and whether the employer was entitled to rely on unpleaded grounds or insufficient evidence to justify such dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi: A dismissal is deemed without just cause if the employer fails to prove the pleaded reasons for termination or introduces unpleaded grounds at trial. Adherence to the principles of natural justice, such as providing an opportunity for the employee to respond to allegations, is a fundamental requirement of industrial law, and a failure to do so, combined with an evidentiary shortfall, invalidates the dismissal.

Result: Claim allowed; the employer is ordered to pay backwages and contractual allowances for the remainder of the fixed-term tenure.