Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3413
INDUSTRIAL COURT MALAYSIA
Mohd Khairy Bin Zainal – Appellant
Versus
Chuanplus Industries Sdn. Bhd. – Respondent
3/4-1281/22
The burden of proof for the fairness of a dismissal lies with the employer on a balance of probabilities. Procedural irregularities in an internal inquiry may be rectified by the court’s de novo hearing of the evidence, satisfying the requirements of natural justice.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Sections 20(3), 30(4) and 30(5) - Unfair dismissal - Misconduct - Burden of proof to show just cause - Conduct of domestic inquiry and natural justice - Employer's right to enforce internal policies - Proportionality of punishment - Breach of policy regarding recording or sharing media in the workplace - Defects in internal inquiry procedural fairness can be cured during proceedings in court. (Paragraphs 9, 14, 16, 38, 47, 54)
(B) Tribunals - Role and functions - The duty of the court is to determine if dismissal was with just cause or excuse based on substantive merits, equity, and good conscience. Courts should not interfere with internal management policy unless the decision is clearly unfair or disproportionate. (Paragraphs 25, 54)
Facts of the case:
An employee challenged their termination following an internal investigative procedure concerning a video uploaded to social media in violation of internal policy. The employee admitted to forwarding the media but denied production. Previous disciplinary issues involving warning letters were considered by the employer. The employee argued that the inquiry procedures were unfair and lacked natural justice.
Findings of Court:
The employer established the misconduct on a balance of probabilities. Although the internal inquiry was not ideal in its execution, the court's independent evaluation of the evidence during the hearing provided the necessary opportunity for the parties to be heard, satisfying natural justice requirements. Termination was deemed justified given the impact of the misconduct and the employee's prior disciplinary standing.
Issues: Whether the dismissal was without just cause or excuse and whether the internal inquiry process was inherently flawed to the point of invalidating the termination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an employer has the burden to prove misconduct under a balance of probabilities. A failure to provide a perfectly executed internal inquiry is remediable through the court's own merit-based hearing. The court focuses on equitable considerations and substantial merits to determine if an employment termination adheres to principles of equity and good conscience.
Result: Dismissal upheld as having just cause or excuse.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. employment history, incident timeline, and procedural sequence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. role of the industrial court and burden of proof in dismissal cases. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. relevance of past disciplinary issues and focus on reasons stated in termination letters. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. assessing misconduct and contravention of company policy. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. application of proportionality and consideration of prior disciplinary records. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. evaluation of domestic inquiry fairness and natural justice. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 7. final determination of fairness and absence of employee redress efforts. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 8. conclusion that dismissal was with just cause and excuse. (Para 52 , 53 , 54) |
REFERENCE:
This is a reference dated 8 August 2022 made by the Director General of Industrial Relations pursuant to subsection 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 [Act 177] arising out of the dismissal of Mohd Khairy bin Zainal (“the Claimant”) by Chuanplus Industries Sdn. Bhd. (“the Company”) on 26 October 2021.
AWARD
BRIEF FACTS
1) The Claimant started work at the Company on 1 September 2020 as a Lorry Driver via a Surat Tawaran Pekerjaan which was undated. However, the Offer Letter did state that the commencement of employment was 1 September 2020. The Offer Letter also seems to be the employment contract because there were some terms and conditions in the letter.
2) On 10 June 2021, the Company introduced a Personal Mobile Phone Policy and acknowledged by all employees including the Claimant. This is important because the crux of the issue relates to this issue.
3) Then, in a letter dated 28 September 2021, the Claimant was issued a warning letter entitled Amaran Kali Pertama. The Claimant did not acknowledge receipt of the warning letter. The warning letter was for disciplinary offences against the Claimant. The Claimant sent a reply entitled Surat tunjuk sebab kenapa Tindakan tidak boleh diambil on 12 Oktober 2021.
4) Further on 15 October 2021, the Claimant was issued a Show Cause Letter, regarding one issue, which was regarding a video that was claimed to be uploaded by the Claimant in his WhatsApp on 12 October 2021, purportedly around 10.20am recorded in the Company’s premises, specifically contravening the policy introduced above. In the letter, the Claimant was required to reply on or before 20 October 2021 and that he was suspended until that date.
5) Subsequently on 20 October 2021, the Company issued a letter informing the Claimant that there would be a Domestic Inquiry (“DI”) to be held on 22 October 2021 with regards to the issue of the WhatsApp posting. After the DI the Claimant was found guilty of the charges against him by the panel presiding in the DI.
6) The DI was conducted on 22 October 2021 and after the charge was read the Claimant claimed he took the video from his friend’s WhatsApp but not making the video. At the end of the DI proceedings, the Claimant was excused and the panellist’s deliberated. The Claimant was found guilty, and the decision was termination. The Claimant refused to acknowledge receipt of the DI report on the grounds of the Company did not show or inform who received the video online.
7) On 25 October 2021, the Company issued a Termination Letter informing the Claimant of the charges against him. The letter informed the claimant that his final day was 26 October 2021.
8) The Court has gone through the evidence as given through testimony in Court and the documents and submission that have been filed. Those documents and submissions are listed for ease of reference as follows:
(i) Statement of Case dated 26 September 2022;
(ii) Statement in Reply dated 17 October 2022;
(iii) Rejoinder dated 7 November 2022;
(iv) Claimant’s Ikatan Dokumen tendered on 15 July 2024 and marked as exhibit CLB-1;
(v) Company’s B
