2025 MarsdenLR 6275

INDUSTRIAL COURT MALAYSIA
Thanakody a/l Renganathan – Appellant
Versus
Kuala Lumpur Kepong Berhad – Respondent
15(11)/4-858/20

The court held that employment termination for off-duty misconduct is justified if the actions are subversive to workplace discipline, threaten industrial harmony, or directly compromise the employer's duty to provide a safe and orderly work environment, particularly in cases involving physical violence on company-controlled premises.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Employment Act 1955 - Section 14(1) - Penal Code - Section 147 - Dismissal - Misconduct - Off-hours misconduct - Workplace discipline - Rioting and assault - Residential quarters within employer premises.

(B) Industrial Court role - Court is not bound by findings of domestic inquiries and must conduct an independent merits-based investigation - Standard of proof in dismissal cases is the civil standard, based on the balance of probabilities - Industrial harmony and safety are primary considerations in determining the equity of a dismissal. (Paras 38, 39, 41)

(C) Subversive of discipline - Misconduct committed outside working hours constitutes grounds for termination if the act is subversive to the employment relationship or threatens the safety and order of the workplace - Acts of physical violence against co-workers represent a grave breach of the employment contract and compromise the integrity of the working environment. (Paras 74, 75, 80)

Facts of the case:
An employee was dismissed following a domestic inquiry that found him guilty of rioting and physically assaulting a co-worker at residential premises provided by the employer, as well as unauthorized absence from work. The employee challenged the termination, claiming the events were personal and occurred outside of official working hours.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the allegations of rioting, assault, and absenteeism were proven on a balance of probabilities. The evidence indicated that the incident involved multiple participants and resulted in serious bodily injury, necessitating specialized medical attention. The court held that such violent conduct on company-controlled property significantly undermines the disciplinary standards and industrial harmony of the organization.

Issues: Whether the dismissal of an employee for riotous and violent conduct committed outside of official working hours on company-managed property, and for unauthorized absenteeism, constitutes a dismissal with just cause or excuse.

Ratio Decidendi: Physical violence and rioting conducted by employees on company premises are inherently destructive to the employment relationship, even if initiated outside of scheduled working hours. Such acts are fundamentally subversive to workplace discipline and the employer's obligation to maintain a safe and secure environment, thereby providing just cause for dismissal as they pose a direct threat to industrial harmony and the safety of the workforce.

Result: Claim dismissed.