SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 MarsdenLR 2536

INDUSTRIAL COURT MALAYSIA
Hasmizawani Binti Mohammad – Appellant
Versus
Koperasi Pegawai-Pegawai Melayu Malaysia Berhad (MOCCIS) – Respondent
11(3)(15))(6)))(14)/4-2489/20



IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO.: 11(3)(15)(6)(14)/4-2489/20 BETWEEN HASMIZAWANI BINTI MOHAMMAD ... CLAIMANT AND KOPERASI PEGAWAI-PEGAWAI MELAYU MALAYSIA BERHAD (MOCCIS) ... COMPANY AWARD NO.: 2401 OF 2023 Before : Y.A. PUAN NUR FAUZAH BINTI DATO’ MOKHTAR - CHAIRMAN (Sitting Alone)

Venue : Industrial Court of Malaysia at Kuala Lumpur Date of Reference : 07.10.2020.

Date(s) of Mention : 26.11.2020, 19.02.2021, 25.10.2021, 07.02.2022, 03.03.2022, 30.06.2022 & 30.01.2023.

Date(s) of Hearing : 06.01.2023, 09.01.2023 & 10.01.2023.

Representation : For the Claimant –

Ms. Normah Bt Mohamad Desa Messrs Normah Desa & Co For the Company – Mr. Ramesh Gopal Ms. Joanna K. Thevathasan Messrs Rajes Hisham Rahim & Gopal REFERENCE:

[ 1 ] This is a reference dated 7th October 2020 by The Honourable Minister of Human Resources, Malaysia to the Industrial Court of Malaysia under section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 [Act 177] in respect of the dismissal of HASMIZAWANI BINTI MOHAMMAD (“the Claimant”) by KOPERASI PEGAWAI- PEGAWAI MELAYU MALAYSIA BERHAD (MOCCIS) (“the Company”) on

17th January 2020 AWARD [ 2 ] This case was previously tried and concluded by the former Chairman of Court 15, Yang Arif Tuan Iznan Ishak who had since retired from the Industrial Court. This case has now been transferred to this Court and I have been requested to prepare and deliver the Award for this case.

[ 3 ] Subsection 23 (6) of Act 177 provides that during the absence of or inability to act from illness or any other cause by the Chairman, the Yang di- Pertuan Agong may appoint another person to exercise the powers or perform the functions of the Chairman. This Court, relying on subsection 23(6) of Act 177 and the principles laid down in the High Court case of Bax Global (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. v Sukhdev Singh Pritam Singh and Anor [2011] 2 ILR 251, hands down the Award for this Case.

[ 3 ] In handing down this Award the following were considered by the Court:

(a) the record of proceedings;

(b) the notes of proceedings prepared by the former Chairman;

(c) Statement of Case dated 16th December 2020;

(d) Statement in Reply dated 9th April 2021;

(e) the Claimant’s Bundle of Documents marked as CLB;

(f) the Company’s Bundles of Documents marked as COB1, COB2, COB3, COB4 and COB5;

(g) the Claimant’s Written Submissions dated 10th March 2023; (h) the Company’s Written Submissions dated 10th March 2023;

(i) the Claimant’s Submissions in Reply dated 31st March 2023; and (j) the Company’s Submissions in Reply dated 27th March 2023.

[ 4 ] The Company called three (3) witnesses i.e. Prof. Madya Mohd Salleh Bin Mohamed (“COWS-1”), Gurdial Singh A/L Atma Singh (“COWS-2”) and Lt Cdr (R) Ir. Haji Mohd Ismail Bin Che Mat Din (“COWS-3”). Whilst the Claimant testified as the sole witness in this Case.

Background Facts [ 5 ] Based on the pleadings and bundles of documents, this Court takes note of the following –

(a) the Claimant was employed at the Company on 1st March 2000 as a Clerk and subsequently as a permanent clerk commencing from 1st October 2000. The Claimant’s terms and conditions of employment were stipulated in the letter of offer dated

24th August 2000;

(b) the Claimant was employed at the Company until her termination on

17th January 2020. During her tenure of employment at the Company, the Claimant had served in various divisions and department in the Company, inter alia, Membership and Loans Division, Finance & Accounts Division, Business & Technology Division, Marketing, Business & Investment Division and Collection and Litigation Department;

(c) the Claimant was terminated on 17th January 2020 vide letter dated the same day which was signed by COWS-1, Executive Chairman on behalf of the Company; and (d) the Claimant’s last drawn salary was RM1,778.00 per month.

The Company’s Case [ 6 ] The Company contends that the Claimant was dismissed from her employment as she had committed a serious misconduct and did not act in the best interest of the Company and / or act in a ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top