CASE HIGHTLIGHTS

JASPAL KAUR AJIT SINGH v. LEONFAST SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
TAN GHEE PHAIK
AWARD NO. 2346 OF 2018 [CASE NO: 13/4-946/18]
26 SEPTEMBER 2018

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Terms and conditions – Notice of termination – Claimant terminated for making false declarations to the company – Whether her termination had been carried out with just cause and excuse – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Claimant subsequently offered reinstatement but refusing to take it – Reasons for the same – Whether her rejection of the reinstatement offer had been wrong in law

INDUSTRIAL COURT: Procedure – Action – Whether this had been a fit case to refer to the IC – Factors to consider – Effect of – Whether the claimant had been fraudulent with the company in her actions – Evaluation of the evidence – Whether this had constituted a frivolous and vexatious action and an abuse of process of the IC – Purpose of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 – What employers and the DGIR should do in future


TAN HONG LAI v. UMW TOYOTA MOTOR SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
ROSENANI ABD RAHMAN
AWARD NO. 2596 OF 2018 [CASE NO: 2/4-209/15]
17 OCTOBER 2018

DISMISSAL: Absenteeism – Claimant taking emergency leave – Whether an actual emergency had existed – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Claimant’s explanations – Whether acceptable – Whether the claimant had been absent without leave on the material days – Whether the charge had been proven by the company against him – Whether his dismissal had been with just cause and excuse

DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies – Medical check-up – Whether he had had a medical check-up at a specialist clinic as opposed to a company approved one without the company’s approval – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether charge proven by the company – Claimant’s explanations – Whether acceptable – Whether his misconduct had justified his dismissal – Claimant’s length of service with the company and track record with it – What the company should have done – Whether the company’s actions towards him should have been more sympathetic – Whether dismissal too harsh under the circumstances – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)

DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies – Medical leave – Whether the claimant had taken medical leave following a certain pattern – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Claimant’s explanations – Whether acceptable – Whether the charge had been proven by the company against him – Whether his dismissal had been with just cause and excuse