SUBJECT INDEX
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Judicial review - Certiorari - Application for an order for certiorari to quash award of Industrial Court - Whether there were errors of law in Industrial Court's finding - Whether breach of natural justice sufficient proof of victimization - Whether charge against applicants proven - Whether applicants' dismissal harsh and disproportionate
Harianto Effendy Zakaria & Ors v. Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia & Anor
(Aziah Ali J) [2011] 3 ILR 241 
DISMISSAL
Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Duties of the claimant towards the company - Claimant failing to renew licenses on time - Reasons for the same - Whether the claimant had been grossly negligent in the discharge of her duties to the company - Conduct of the claimant - Effect of - Whether the claimant had accepted that she had been negligent towards the company - Sequence of events - Effect of - Claimant tendering her resignation - Whether it had been tendered voluntarily - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Zarina Muhammad v. Inai Kiara Sdn Bhd
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2011] 3 ILR 373
Insubordination - Claimant accused of insubordination and discharged from service - Whether it had been a premeditated act on the part of the company - Evidence tendered by the parties - Effect of - Whether the misconduct had been proven against the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
SE Everlast Sdn Bhd v. Tan Ley Hua
(Franklin Goonting) [2011] 3 ILR 323
Insubordination - Company accusing the claimant of being insubordinate - Evidence tendered by the company - Whether the charges of insubordination had been made out against the claimant - Effect of - The defence put forward by the claimant - Whether it had been acceptable - The behaviour of the claimant - Effect of - Whether the claimant's conduct had been subversive to discipline and had constituted insubordination - Factors to consider - Whether the company had managed to satisfy its burden of proof - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
SE Everlast Sdn Bhd v. Tan Ley Hua
(Franklin Goonting) [2011] 3 ILR 323
Insubordination - University transferring the claimant - Claimant refusing to comply and challenging its legality - Whether the university had had a right to transfer the claimant - Perusal of the claimant's letter of appointment and the university's articles of association - Effect of - Whether the claimant by refusing to go on transfer had committed an insubordinate act - Evidence adduced - Whether the claimant by his refusal to go on transfer had acted irresponsibly - Effect of - What the claimant should have done instead - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Dr Syed Ali Tawfik Al-Attas v. Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2011] 3 ILR 340
Misconduct - Whether the claimant had been willfully disobedient - Claimant refusing to acknowledge receipt of the memo - Effect of - Whether any mitigating factors had existed in favour of the claimant - Whether the court should interfere with the company's decision - Whether the claimant had come to court with clean hands
SE Everlast Sdn Bhd v. Tan Ley Hua
(Franklin Goonting) [2011] 3 ILR 323
Notice of termination - Forced resignation - Claimant tendering her resignation letter - Whether the claimant had been forced to resign - Evidence adduced - Contents of claimant's resignation letter - Effect of - Claimant subsequently withdrawing her resignation letter - Company not agreeable to her withdrawal - Whether she could unilaterally withdraw her resignation - Position of law - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Zarina Muhammad v. Inai Kiara Sdn Bhd
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2011] 3 ILR 373
Notice of termination - Forced resignation - Whether the claimant had been forced to resign - Evidence adduced - Factors to consider - Effect of - Claimant alleging harassment to resign by the Chairman - Whether proven by the claimant - Effect of - Claimant failing to plead it - Effect of
Zarina Muhammad v. Inai Kiara Sdn Bhd
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2011] 3 ILR 373
Performance - Unsatisfactory performance - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Guru Dhillon v. Profitable Plots Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2011] 3 ILR 257
Victimization - Particulars of the alleged victimization not pleaded - Whether it had been fatal to the claimant's case
Dr Syed Ali Tawfik Al-Attas v. Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2011] 3 ILR 340
INDUSTRIAL COURT
Jurisdiction - Differing dates in the claimant's pleaded case and the Ministerial reference - Whether there had been confusion as to when the claimant had actually been dismissed - Effect of - Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter - Where the Industrial Court obtained its threshold jurisdiction from - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Azlina Suminggu v. WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2011] 3 ILR 294
Jurisdiction - How obtained - Whether the employer could bring a counter-claim against a workman in a reference pursuant to s. 20(3) of the said Act - Whether the defence of set-off could be pleaded in a reference of a dismissal of a workman - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 56(1)
Ho Tack Sien v. Antah Sri Radin Sdn Bhd & Anor
(Susila Sithamparam) [2011] 3 ILR 336
Jurisdiction - Stay of proceedings - Whether the Industrial Court could stay its own proceedings - Whether it came within the four corners of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Powers of the Industrial Court - Effect of - The Industrial Court to act according to equity and good conscience without regard to technicality and legal form - What that meant
Yen Kok Ho v. Ikram Megah Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila G Azariah) [2011] 3 ILR 471
Jurisdiction - Workman - Whether the claimant had been a workman within the ambit of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Employment contract entered into between the parties - Contents of - Perusal of - Effect of - Whether it had been a contract for service or a contract of service - Whether the dismissal had been without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2 and 20(3)
Ng Chin Poh v. SMT Speed-Mark Forwarders (M) Sdn Bhd
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2011] 3 ILR 264
Jurisdiction - Workman - Whether the claimant had been a workman within the ambit of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Functions of the claimant as the MD of the company - Effect of - Whether the company had any control over the claimant's functions in the company - Perusal and evaluation of the evidence tendered - What it showed - Whether the arrangement had been characteristic of an employer-workman relationship - Effect of - Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter - Effect of - Whether the dismissal had been without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2 and 20(3)
Ng Chin Poh v. SMT Speed-Mark Forwarders (M) Sdn Bhd
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2011] 3 ILR 264
Jurisdiction - Workman - Whether the claimant had been a workman within the ambit of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Position held by claimant - Job responsibilities of the claimant - Evidence adduced - Whether arrangement had been characteristic of an employer-workman relationship - Effect of - Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter - Effect of -Whether the dismissal had been without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2 and 20(3)
Ng Chin Poh v. SMT Speed-Mark Forwarders (M) Sdn Bhd
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2011] 3 ILR 264
Procedure - Action - Stay application - Whether the Industrial Court should grant a stay of proceedings - Factors to consider - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3), 29(g) & 30(5)
Yen Kok Ho v. Ikram Megah Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila G Azariah) [2011] 3 ILR 471
Procedure - Action - Stay application - Whether it should be adjourned sine die - Factors to consider - Whether any prejudice or injustice would be caused to the claimant - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3), 29(g) & 30(5)
Yen Kok Ho v. Ikram Megah Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila G Azariah) [2011] 3 ILR 471
Remedies - Compensation - Determination of the claimant's monthly earnings - How arrived at - Computation of compensation - Whether a sum would be deducted for post-dismissal earnings - History of claimant's employment - Consideration of - Whether this was a suitable case where there would be no deductions for post-dismissal earnings made
Guru Dhillon v. Profitable Plots Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2011] 3 ILR 257
Remedies - Reinstatement - Whether suitable to award under the circumstances - Factors to consider - Effect of
Guru Dhillon v. Profitable Plots Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2011] 3 ILR 257
LABOUR LAW
Industrial Court - Dispute over wrongful dismissal - Whether there was error of law in Industrial Court's finding - Whether High Court should weigh and assess evidence - Whether applicants' dismissal harsh and disproportionate
Harianto Effendy Zakaria & Ors v. Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia & Anor
(Aziah Ali J) [2011] 3 ILR 241
NON-COMPLIANCE
Award - Consent award - Whether the consent award had been conditional - Perusal of - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 56(1)
Ho Tack Sien v. Antah Sri Radin Sdn Bhd & Anor
(Susila Sithamparam) [2011] 3 ILR 336
Collective Agreement - Union alleging non-compliance of article 44 of the Collective Agreement - Interpretation of art 44 of the collective agreement - What the words "keuntungan" or "profits" had meant - Effect of - Whether the respondent had made any profits in 2009 - Evidence adduced
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Wartawan Malaysia v. Utusan Melayu (Malaysia) Berhad
(Susila Sithamparam) [2011] 3 ILR 278
Collective Agreement - Union alleging non-compliance of article 44 of the Collective Agreement - Respondent had been a holding company - Implications of the same - What provisions of the Companies Act 1965 (Revised 1973) had been applicable to the respondent as a holding company - An evaluation of - Effect of - Whether a case of non-compliance had been made out - Evaluation of the facts and evidence - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 56 & Companies Act 1965 (Revised 1973) ss. 4, 169(5) and 169(6)
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Wartawan Malaysia v. Utusan Melayu (Malaysia) Berhad
(Susila Sithamparam) [2011] 3 ILR 278
TRADE DISPUTE
Collective Agreement - Company facing a reduction of production due to global economic forces - Effect of - Steps taken by the company to avoid retrenching its workmen - Whether it had complied with the Code of Conduct for Industrial Harmony - Effect of - What the company should have done - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 26(2), 30(4) and 30(5)
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Pewter Dan Kraftangan Semenanjung Malaysia v. Royal Selangor International Sdn Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam) [2011] 3 ILR 458
Collective Agreement - Ex gratia and performance bonus payments - Interpretation of the relevant article in the collective agreement - Whether the Union's members had been entitled to the same - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the Union's conduct had been consistent with their claims - What the Union should have done - Whether there had been unfair labour practice and discriminatory conduct displayed by the Bank - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 26(2)
Kesatuan Kakitangan Eksekutif Bumiputra Commerce Bank Berhad v. Bumiputra Commerce Bank Berhad
(Ong Geok Lan) [2011] 3 ILR 283
Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions of service - Annual increment - Whether a 5% increase had been reasonable - Factors to consider - Effect of
Kesatuan Eksekutif Airod Sdn Bhd v. Airod Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2011] 3 ILR 399
Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions of service - Existing benefits - Whether it had been adequately taken care of - Factors to consider - Effect of
Kesatuan Eksekutif Airod Sdn Bhd v. Airod Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2011] 3 ILR 399
Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions of service - Overtime - Who had been entitled to it
Kesatuan Eksekutif Airod Sdn Bhd v. Airod Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2011] 3 ILR 399
Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions of service - Retirement benefits and EPF payments - Whether it had already been taken into account - Effect of
Kesatuan Eksekutif Airod Sdn Bhd v. Airod Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2011] 3 ILR 399
Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions of service - Revision of salary structure - Whether the Harun formula should be followed - Limitations of the Harun formula - Effect of - What the parties should do when negotiating the next collective agreement
Kesatuan Eksekutif Airod Sdn Bhd v. Airod Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2011] 3 ILR 399
Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions of service - Salary structure and adjustment - Whether the Hewitt study should be followed - What the agreement of the parties had been - Effect of
Kesatuan Eksekutif Airod Sdn Bhd v. Airod Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2011] 3 ILR 399
Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions of service - Scope of the collective agreement - Who had come within its scope - Whether the MI category of employees and contract employees had come within s. 9(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Effect of - Whether such determination had come within the scope of the Minister's functions - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 9(1), 9(1A) and 9(1D)
Kesatuan Eksekutif Airod Sdn Bhd v. Airod Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2011] 3 ILR 399
WORDS & PHRASES
Harass - Definition of - Whether the evidence adduced had indicated the existence of harassment by the Chairman on the claimant in this case - Effect of
Zarina Muhammad v. Inai Kiara Sdn Bhd
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2011] 3 ILR 373
INDEKS PERKARA
KETERANGAN
Saksi - Kegagalan syarikat memanggil saksi - Hanya COW1 memberi keterangan bagi pihak syarikat - Sama ada keterangan COW1 mencukupi untuk membuktikan salahlaku YM - Kesannya
Ismadei Sahnam lwn. Proton Edar Sdn Bhd
(Hamdan Indah) [2011] 3 ILR 311
MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN
Remedi - Penempatan semula - Sama ada wajar diawardkan di dalam kes ini - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira
Ismadei Sahnam lwn. Proton Edar Sdn Bhd
(Hamdan Indah) [2011] 3 ILR 311
PEMBUANGAN KERJA
Ketidakpatuhan terhadap polisi syarikat - Pengambilan dadah - Sama ada salahlaku tersebut telah dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Sama ada YM telah bertindak bertentangan dengan kepentingan syarikat - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Sama ada mencukupi untuk membuktikan salahlaku YM - Kesannya - Sama ada perhubungan antara majikan dan pekerja telah terjejas - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan syarikat membuang kerja YM adalah munasabah - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan atas alasan yang adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Ismadei Sahnam lwn. Proton Edar Sdn Bhd
(Hamdan Indah) [2011] 3 ILR 311
Ketidakpatuhan terhadap polisi syarikat - Pengambilan dadah - Sama ada YM mempunyai tanggungjawab untuk melaporkan apa-apa aktiviti yang menyalahi polisi syarikat - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Sama ada kegagalan YM untuk melaporkan apa-apa aktiviti yang menyalahi polisi syarikat merupakan suatu salahlaku di pihaknya - Kesannya
Ismadei Sahnam lwn. Proton Edar Sdn Bhd
(Hamdan Indah) [2011] 3 ILR 311
Ketidakpatuhan terhadap polisi syarikat - Pengambilan dadah - YM diuji positif untuk "morphine" - Alasan yang dikemukakan oleh YM - Sama ada dapat diterima - Kesannya - Sama ada YM telah bertindak bertentangan dengan polisi syarikat - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Sama ada mencukupi untuk membuktikan salahlaku YM - Kesannya - Sama ada perhubungan antara majikan dan pekerja telah terjejas - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan syarikat membuang kerja YM adalah munasabah - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan atas alasan yang adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) dan Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 Bahagian IV Jadual Pertama
Mahidi Mohammad lwn. Aker Solutions Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham) [2011] 3 ILR 364
Ketidakturutan - Tempoh percubaan YM dilanjutkan - Sebabnya - Sama ada YM telah menolak tawaran syarikat untuk melanjutkan tempoh percubaannya - Sikap dan kelakuan YM - Kesannya - Bukti yang dikemukakan oleh syarikat - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Vijayarani Sittampalan lwn. Ranbaxy (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Hamdan Indah) [2011] 3 ILR 300
Pekerja percubaan - Tempoh percubaan YM dilanjutkan - Sebabnya - YM membantah kepada penilaian yang dijalankan keatasnya - Sama ada bantahan YM mempunyai asas - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Vijayarani Sittampalan lwn. Ranbaxy (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Hamdan Indah) [2011] 3 ILR 300
SIASATAN DALAMAN
Keputusan panel siasatan dalaman - Sama ada berasaskan kepada premis yang betul - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada mahkamah terikat dengan keputusan panel siasatan dalaman
Ismadei Sahnam lwn. Proton Edar Sdn Bhd
(Hamdan Indah) [2011] 3 ILR 311
Kesilapan prosidur - Keputusan panel siasatan dalaman - Sama ada satu kes prima facie telah dibuktikan terhadap YM - Sama ada keputusan panel siasatan dalaman harus diterima - Fakor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya
Ismadei Sahnam lwn. Proton Edar Sdn Bhd
(Hamdan Indah) [2011] 3 ILR 311
Ketiadaan - Sama ada itu bermakna secara otomatik bahawa pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan tanpa sebab yang adil dan beralasan
Mahidi Mohammad lwn. Aker Solutions Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham) [2011] 3 ILR 364