2026 MarsdenLR 1584

HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
NORADURA HAMZAH, JC
MALAYSIA MARINE AND HEAVY ENGINEERING SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA & ANOR – Respondent
[Judicial Review Application No: JA-25-4-01/2026]

An Industrial Court must determine whether alleged misconduct was in fact committed on the balance of probabilities, not merely whether the employer had a reasonable belief in the misconduct.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20 - Judicial review - Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 - Principles governing judicial review of Industrial Court awards - Whether Industrial Court applied correct test of misconduct - Whether employer must prove misconduct on balance of probabilities or may rely on reasonable belief - Section 33C - Appeal - Section 35 of Act A1615 - Saving and transitional provision - Date of representation determines availability of appeal - Rules of Court 2012 - Order 1A and Order 2 - Irregularity does not nullify proceedings absent substantial injustice - Order 53 rule 4 - Service of cause papers - Order 28 rule 3C - Not applicable to Order 53 proceedings. (Paras 25, 28, 29, 34, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22)

(B) Judicial Review - Scope - Not an appeal - Court does not re-hear evidence, reassess credibility or substitute findings of fact - Findings of fact attract curial deference unless unsupported by evidence or infected by error of law, irrationality or procedural impropriety - Grounds: illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety - Error of law includes asking wrong question, omitting relevant considerations, taking into account irrelevant considerations or misapplying law - High threshold for irrationality. (Paras 25, 26, 32)

(C) Industrial Court - Function under Section 20 - Must determine whether misconduct was in fact committed on balance of probabilities - Reasonable belief test (Ferodo Ltd v. Barnes) not the applicable test - Industrial Court rehears matter afresh - Findings of domestic inquiry not binding - Standard of proof is civil standard flexibly applied according to gravity of allegation. (Paras 11, 12, 28, 29)

Facts of the case:
The applicant-employer dismissed the respondent-employee for alleged misconduct of receiving a benefit (car painting valued at RM3,500.00) from a subcontractor under his charge. The Industrial Court found the dismissal was without just cause or excuse after a full hearing, as the employer failed to prove the misconduct on the balance of probabilities. The Industrial Court awarded backwages and compensation in lieu of reinstatement totaling RM265,253.00. The applicant sought judicial review to quash the award, challenging the Industrial Court's application of the legal test, consideration of evidence, and the reasonableness of its decision.

Findings of Court:
The High Court dismissed the employer's application for judicial review. It held that the Industrial Court correctly applied the test under Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, requiring the employer to prove the alleged misconduct on the balance of probabilities, not merely that the employer had a reasonable belief in the misconduct. The High Court further found that the Industrial Court's evaluation of evidence, including the weight given to an untested statement from an absent witness, was a matter for the tribunal of fact and not an irrelevant consideration. The decision was supported by cogent reasons and was not irrational.

Issues: The main issues were whether the Industrial Court applied the wrong legal test by requiring proof of actual misconduct instead of reasonable belief; whether it took into account irrelevant considerations; whether it failed to take into account relevant considerations; and whether the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable tribunal could have arrived at it.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Industrial Court's function under Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 is to determine whether the misconduct relied upon by the employer was in fact committed by the workman on the balance of probabilities. The reasonable belief test derived from English law of unfair dismissal does not displace this statutory duty. The weight of evidence, including untested out-of-court statements, is for the tribunal of fact. A court sitting in judicial review cannot re-weigh evidence or substitute its own view of the facts. Result : The application for judicial review was dismissed. The Industrial Court award was affirmed. The conditional stay was discharged. The applicant was ordered to pay costs of RM10,000.00 to the respondent. (Paras 35, 36, 37, 38)