|
K INDHIRA RAJA KALANDASAMY v. KHAS CERGAS SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
SAROJINI KANDASAMY
AWARD NO. 2761 OF 2018 [CASE NO: 27(21)/4-1380/17]
30 OCTOBER 2018
DISMISSAL: Misconduct – Whether the claimant had applied, as a college and university, to the Ministry for a Training Visa, thus breaching the fundamental terms of confidentiality and fiduciary duties he had owed the company as the CEO – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the company had succeeded in establishing the misconduct against him – Claimant’s defence – Whether acceptable – Whether dismissal with just cause and excuse
DISMISSAL: Misconduct – Whether the claimant had applied to the Ministry for approval of an Ex-Pat Employment Pass, vide another company, using the company’s information as his own – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the company had succeeded in establishing the misconduct against him – Claimant’s defence – Whether acceptable – Whether dismissal with just cause and excuse
DISMISSAL: Misconduct – Whether the claimant had set up another company which had had the same business operations and address as the company – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether the company had succeeded in establishing the misconduct against him – Claimant’s defence – Whether could be accepted – Whether the company’s conduct towards him had shown mala fide intent – Factors to consider – Effect of – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
EVIDENCE: Adverse inference – Whether the company’s failure to call Dr. Sayyid Shah had raised an adverse inference against it – Factors to consider – Effect of – Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g)
EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence – Police reports and SDs submitted by the company – Whether these documents had been within the contemplation of the company when the claimant had been terminated – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether these documents had raised concerns and had a nexus to the claimant’s case – Whether it had been an attempt by the company to bolster its case against him
EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence – Whether the company’s actions of adducing fresh evidence after the conclusion of the hearing should be allowed – Factors to consider – Whether the prejudicial effect of such evidence had outweighed its probative value
INDUSTRIAL COURT: Procedure – Action – Claimant and company executing a Deed of Settlement pursuant to a civil claim in the Civil Court – Whether it had precluded the claimant from bringing this action against the company – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of
ATHANASIUS ALLAPAN ANTHONG v. MYTEKSI SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
RAJESWARI KARUPIAH
AWARD NO. 2857 OF 2018 [CASE NO: 32(22)/4-1471/17]
5 NOVEMBER 2018
INDUSTRIAL COURT: Procedure – Action – Whether the IC ought to award costs – Factors to consider – Effect of – Actions of the claimant’s counsel – Whether personal costs ought to be made against her – Industrial Relations Regulations 1967, reg. 5
|
