The reference of The Honourable Minister of Human Resources, Malaysia dated 26 July 2003 is regarding the dismissal of Choo Chee Siam ("the claimant") by Wong Brothers' Building Construction ("the company") on 23 November 2002.

Background Facts (In Brief)

The claimant commenced employment with the company as a lorry driver in October 2002. He was paid RM1,650 a month. According to the company, during his short stint with it, he was given a number of warnings in regard to his performance. While driving the company's lorry, he did not wear a shirt and only wore slippers. He also drove the lorry in such a manner as to cause frequent punctures to its tyres.

On two occasions, the claimant did not return the lorry to the store after working hours. In addition, he often quarrelled with his fellow workers at the project site and slept on the job. He was also alleged to have cheated the company in relation to his contribution to the Employees' Provident Fund.

The claimant was paid his last salary on 23 November 2002. The company claimed that, since the claimant did not heed its warnings regarding his misconduct, his employment was terminated.

Before the claimant testified, he was guided by the court not only in regard to the procedure but also his substantive rights without prejudicing the interests of the company. He was also alerted to the fact that even though the company was absent, he still needed to show substantial merits in his case in order for the court to find for him.

He told the court that he first worked for the company as a 3-ton lorry driver on 16 October 2002. His salary was then RM1,650 per month. On 23 November 2002, he was sacked by the company. The claimant asked one Wong Fei Fah, the owner of the company, the reason for terminating his service and according to him, he was told that he was not fit for the job. He was told that sometimes he drove the lorry so slowly that in one day he could not even complete two trips.

The claimant explained to the owner of the company that the fault was with the supervisor. On arriving at Putrajaya to take the goods, the supervisor loaded them onto the lorry very slowly.

He said that the contents in para. 5 in the Statement of Reply are all false allegations against him. He defended by saying that he did not drive the lorry shirtless and he wore slippers on certain occasions because his shoes were still wet after washing. The claimant said that one of the lorry's tyres always leaked and the lorry only experienced two punctures during late at night. On one of that two occasions, he was in Seremban and the other he was at a construction site, therefore, he could not return the lorry to the store.

However, the claimant claimed that this happened with the knowledge of the company. The claimant said that he wanted to be reinstated.

The problem is now on representation. At the beginning of the case, the claimant was represented by counsel but later the latter discharged himself. The court did advise him and give him an opportunity to hire a counsel but the claimant wanted to represent himself despite being told the legal implications of the case.

When this case was first mentioned on 25 September 2003 in court No. 6, the learned counsel, Jesvinderjit Singh from the law firm of Jesvinderjit Singh appeared for the company but no representative from the company was present in court. The claimant then represented himself. The date of hearing was changed from the 24th to the 25th of March 2004 and the Bundle of Documents was directed by the court to be filed on or before the 24 February 2004.

On the next mention date on 26 February 2004, one C.J. Tam from Messrs Tam & Faizal appeared for the claimant and the same learned counsel appeared for the company, but its representative was not present in court. Prior to this, the court had received the Statement of Case on 3 December 2003 and the Statement of Reply on 22 December 2003.

However, on 26 February 2004, both parties had still not filed their respe