Employee must notify employer of medical leave; failure to do so results in just cause for dismissal.

[1] This reference stems from the dismissal of Rosedi bin Mokhtar ("the Claimant") by Malaysian Airlines System Berhad ("the Company") on 21 August 2009.

[2] This reference has been transferred from Court 25 to Court 22 for the writing of the Award as the former Chairman of Court 25 has retired. This Award is now penned by the learned Chairman Court 22. The learned Chairman has been directed by the President to hand down this Award in the interest of justice. The last written submission was filed on 19 June 2014 and the matter has been pending since. The Court relies on the authority of Bax Global (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (now known as Schenker Logistic [Malaysia] Sdn Bhd) v. Sukhdev Singh s/o Pritam Singh and Anor, (R3-25-162-09) where reference was made, inter alia to s 23(6) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 by the learned Judicial Commissioner. It was held in the said case that in order to obviate grave hardship being caused the case need not be heard de novo. And the Award written by another Chairman in similar circumstances was upheld by the Appeal Court. Hence this Award is written based on my reading, perusal and evaluation of the facts and evidence contained in the notes of proceedings and gleaned from the documents made available to the original Court.

[3] On 20 February 2015 the Malaysian Airlines System Berhad (Administration) Act 2015 (the said "Act") came into operation. On 25 May 2015 and pursuant to s 5 of the said Act the Administrator was appointed to administrate amongst others the Malaysian Airlines System Berhad. Section 11(e) of the said Act provides that on the appointment of the said Administrator a moratorium shall take effect restraining the commencement or continuance of any proceedings and execution or other legal process in any Court or tribunal amongst others except with the prior written consent of the said Administrator. It is the intention of the Parliamentary draftmen that the administration of the Administered Companies under the said Act should be carried out effectively and without interruptions. Be that as it may I am handing down this Award as the last submissions for this case was filed on 19 June 2014. The Hearing was completed on 24 October 2013 before the learned Chairman of Court 25.

Brief Facts

[4] The Claimant was employed by the Company as a Traffic Hand commencing 8 November 1993. His last post with the Company however was Ground Equipment Operator stationed on the Ramp. He contended that he received the Company's letter dated 22 July 2009 stating that he had failed to turn up for work on without prior approval from his superior on 3, 6 and 8 July to 22 July 2009. It was his contention that he did not turn up for work on the said dates as his health did not permit him to do so. He contended that he had submitted his medical certificates dated 3 July 2009, 6 July 2009 and 8 to 9 July 2009 from the Company's panel clinic. He said that the said medical certificates were forwarded to the executive of Human Resources of the Company on 30 July 2009 and that when he was sick he had informed the Ramp Department the of his ailment and that he was on medical leave. He contended that the Company however terminated his services vide its letter dated 21 August 2009. It was his contention that the Company condone in his absenteeism by issuing the letter of termination on 21 September 2009. The Claimant contends that the Company had failed to Counsel him and sent for a medical examination if at all he was always absent from work. He contended that the Company had failed to carry out an investigation as it is required to under Art 24 of the Collective Agreeme