SUBJECT INDEX
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Judicial review - Registration of trade union - Appeal against trade union registration by employer - Whether employer obliged to follow specific procedure under s. 71A of Trade Unions Act 1959 to appeal - Whether specific procedure mandatory - Whether employer able to apply for declaratory relief by way of judicial review before exhausting specific appeal procedure - Trade Unions Act 1959, ss. 12(1), 71A
Robin Tan Pang Heng v. Ketua Pengarah Kesatuan Sekerja Malaysia & Anor
(Hashim Yusoff FCJ, Heliliah Mohd Yusof FCJ & Suriyadi Halim Omar JCA) 
Judicial review - Remedies - Certiorari and prohibition - Inordinate delay on part of Minister in referring matter of second respondent's dismissal to Industrial Court - Whether Minister's decision ought to be quashed - Right to livelihood - Balance of prejudice
Faber Hotel Holdings Sdn Bhd v. Menteri Sumber Manusia Malaysia & Ors
(Mohamad Ariff Yusof JC)
Public servants - Dismissal of police officer - Police officer dismissed for alleged breaches of discipline occurring between 1982 and 1990 - Respondent asked to show cause in 1993 - Whether long and unexplained delay in instituting disciplinary action amounted to procedural unfairness - Failure by disciplinary authority to adequately consider respondent's written representation - Whether allegations devoid of merit - Whether public servant facing disciplinary action under General Orders 1980 entitled to oral hearing - Failure of disciplinary authority to call respondent for further clarification - Disciplinary authority fettering its discretion - Respondent denied reasonable opportunity to have his case heard - Dismissal unlawful - Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) (Chapter D), General Orders 1980, General Orders 4(2)(f)(i), (g) & 26
Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors v. Tay Chai Huat
(Abdull Hamid Embong JCA, KN Segara JCA & Abu Samah Nordin JCA)
DISMISSAL
Misconduct - Claimant allegedly abusing his position in the respondent company - Position held by the claimant - Claimant with the company for 15 years with an impeccable service record - Claimant demanding holidays and entertainment from potential customers of respondent company - Whether his conduct had been in contravention of the company handbook - Effect of - Evidence adduced by the respondent - Whether it had been sufficient to prove the charges against the claimant - Effect of - Whether the respondent had complied with the rules of natural justice - Whether the claimant had committed the misconduct - Whether the claimant's defence had been viable - Whether it had constituted a technical defence - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Kelana Sidek v. Petronas Maritime Services Sdn Bhd
(Aslina Joned)
Misconduct - Claimant allegedly abusing his position in the respondent company - Whether his conduct had been in contravention of the company handbook - Effect of - Evidence adduced by the respondent - Whether it had been sufficient to prove the charges against the claimant - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been singled out for punishment - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Kelana Sidek v. Petronas Maritime Services Sdn Bhd
(Aslina Joned)
Misconduct - Claimant charged with sending and retaining pornographic e-mails from the computer allocated to him by the respondent - Evidence adduced by the respondent - Effect of - Claimant alleging that other staff had accessed his computer - Evidence adduced by the claimant - Whether his defence had been believable - Effect of - Evidence adduced by the respondent - Whether it had been sufficient to prove the charges against the claimant - Effect of - Whether the claimant had committed the misconduct - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Kelana Sidek v. Petronas Maritime Services Sdn Bhd
(Aslina Joned)
Misconduct - Claimant charged with sexual misconduct - Victims not appearing to testify in court - Effect of - Evidence adduced by the respondent - Effect of - Whether the claimant had committed the misconduct - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Kelana Sidek v. Petronas Maritime Services Sdn Bhd
(Aslina Joned)
Misconduct - Claimants taking personal loans from the float fund - Whether it had been a past practice of the company - Evidence adduced by the claimants - Whether sufficient - Effect of - Whether the management of the respondent company had been aware of such a practice - Effect of - Positions held by the claimants in the company - What they should have done - Defence put forward by the claimants - Whether it had been mere denials - Effect of - Whether the charge had been proven by the respondent company - Evidence adduced by the respondent company - Effect of - Whether dismissals without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Nor Hisam Bajuri & Ors v. Airport Limo (M) Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting)
Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant retrenched - Whether the LIFO principles had been followed - What factors needed to be considered before undertaking a retrenchment exercise - Effect of - Evidence adduced by the company - Actions taken by the company - Effect of - Whether the company's actions had shown a mala fide intent - Effect of - Whether a redundancy situation had existed - Whether proven by the company - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Nirmala Devi N Letchumanan v. Informatics Training Technology Sdn Bhd
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz)
Retrenchment - Redundancy - Company facing financial downturn - Company reorganizing and restructuring its business - Company undertaking cost cutting measures - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced by the company - Effect of - Whether the company had informed the claimant - Steps taken by the company - Whether the company had been under an obligation to inform the claimant - Effect of - Evidence adduced by the company - Effect of - Whether the company's actions were bona fide - Effect of - Whether a redundancy situation had existed in the company - Whether proven by the company - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Nirmala Devi N Letchumanan v. Informatics Training Technology Sdn Bhd
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz)
DOMESTIC INQUIRY
Charges - Whether the claimant had known the charges brought against him - Whether material particulars had been given in the charges - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been deprived of an opportunity to effectively defend himself and present his case - Whether it had been against the rules of natural justice - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Kelana Sidek v. Petronas Maritime Services Sdn Bhd
(Aslina Joned)
EVIDENCE
Adverse inference - Victims of alleged sexual harassment not turning up in court to testify - Whether the respondent had done all in its power to secure the attendance of these witnesses - Witnesses had since left the company - Effect of - Whether this was a suitable case to draw an adverse inference against the respondent - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) & Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g)
Kelana Sidek v. Petronas Maritime Services Sdn Bhd
(Aslina Joned)
Documentary evidence - Anonymous letter alleging the claimant's misconduct not produced at trial - Whether it had constituted material evidence - Effect of - What it had constituted - Whether the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing had been sufficient to establish the misconduct against the claimant - Evidence adduced by the respondent - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Kelana Sidek v. Petronas Maritime Services Sdn Bhd
(Aslina Joned)
Documentary evidence - Findings of the DI - Validity of - Person preparing the notes and panel of the DI not called upon to testify on veracity or accuracy of the notes - No reasons given for failure to call - Effect of - Whether the notes had been an accurate reflection of what had transpired - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Kelana Sidek v. Petronas Maritime Services Sdn Bhd
(Aslina Joned)
INDUSTRIAL COURT
Procedure - Parties - Joinder - Claimant seeking to join a Company Director - Factors to consider - Whether there had been a nexus between the Director of the company and the company - Effect of - Whether the Company Director had been the right person to join - The test to be applied - Effect of - Whether joinder necessary to make adjudication enforceable and effective - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 29(a) & 30(5)
Lim Chin Heng v. Interasia Maritime (M) Sdn Bhd
(Tay Lee Ly)
Procedure - Parties - Joinder - Claimant seeking to join a Company Director - Reasons for the same - Whether the company had been able to meet its financial obligations - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Company still solvent - What that meant - Winding-up petitions commenced against the company - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 29(a) & 30(5)
Lim Chin Heng v. Interasia Maritime (M) Sdn Bhd
(Tay Lee Ly)
Procedure - Pleadings - Union filing SOC - Respondent alleging non-compliance with r. 9(3) of the Industrial Court Rules 1967 - Comparison of SOC with other Statements of Cases filed into court by other unions - Effect of - Whether there had been non-compliance with r. 9(3) of the Industrial Court Rules 1967 - Effect of - Factors to consider - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 26(2) and 29(g) & Industrial Court Rules 1967, r. 9(3)
Persatuan Pegawai-Pegawai Affin Bank Berhad v. Affin Bank Berhad
(Mary Shakila G Azariah)
LABOUR LAW
Employment - Dismissal - Reference - Inordinate delay on part of Minister in referring matter of second respondent's dismissal to Industrial Court - Whether Minister's decision ought to be quashed - Right to livelihood - Balance of prejudice
Faber Hotel Holdings Sdn Bhd v. Menteri Sumber Manusia Malaysia & Ors
(Mohamad Ariff Yusof JC)
Industrial Court - Reference by Minister - Inordinate delay on part of Minister in referring matter of second respondent's dismissal to Industrial Court - Whether Minister's decision ought to be quashed - Right to livelihood - Balance of prejudice
Faber Hotel Holdings Sdn Bhd v. Menteri Sumber Manusia Malaysia & Ors
(Mohamad Ariff Yusof JC)
Trade union - Registration - Appeal against trade union registration by employer - Whether provisions of Trade Unions Act 1959 applicable to employer - Whether employer obliged to follow specific procedure to appeal to Minister - Whether specific procedure mandatory - Whether employer able to apply for declaratory relief by way of judicial review before exhausting specific appeal procedure - Trade Unions Act 1959, ss. 12(1), 71A
Robin Tan Pang Heng v. Ketua Pengarah Kesatuan Sekerja Malaysia & Anor
(Hashim Yusoff FCJ, Heliliah Mohd Yusof FCJ & Suriyadi Halim Omar JCA)
POLICE
Disciplinary proceedings - Dismissal - Police officer dismissed for alleged breaches of discipline occurring between 1982 and 1990 - Respondent only asked to show cause in 1993 - Whether long and unexplained delay in instituting disciplinary action amounted to procedural unfairness - Failure by disciplinary authority to adequately consider respondent's written representation - Whether allegations devoid of merit - Whether public servant facing disciplinary action under General Orders 1980 entitled to oral hearing - Failure of disciplinary authority to keep an open mind and to call respondent for further clarification - Disciplinary authority fettering its discretion - Respondent denied reasonable opportunity to have his case heard - Dismissal unlawful - Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) (Chapter D), General Orders 1980, General Orders 4(2)(f)(i), (g) & 26
Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors v. Tay Chai Huat
(Abdull Hamid Embong JCA, KN Segara JCA & Abu Samah Nordin JCA)
PUBLIC SERVANTS
Dismissal - Dismissal of police officer - Police officer dismissed for alleged breaches of discipline occurring between 1982 and 1990 - Respondent only asked to show cause in 1993 - Whether long and unexplained delay in instituting disciplinary action amounted to procedural unfairness - Failure by disciplinary authority to adequately consider respondent's written representation - Whether allegations devoid of merit - Whether public servant facing disciplinary action under General Orders 1980 entitled to oral hearing - Failure of disciplinary authority to keep an open mind and to call respondent for further clarification - Disciplinary authority fettering its discretion - Respondent denied reasonable opportunity to have his case heard - Dismissal unlawful - Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) (Chapter D), General Orders 1980, General Orders 4(2)(f)(i), (g) & 26
Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors v. Tay Chai Huat
(Abdull Hamid Embong JCA, KN Segara JCA & Abu Samah Nordin JCA)
TRADE DISPUTE
Collective Agreement - Interpretation of articles - Factors to consider - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 26(2)
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Ladang (NUPW) v. Persatuan Pengeluar-Pengeluar Pertanian Tanah Melayu (MAPA)
(Ong Geok Lan)
INDEKS PERKARA
KETERANGAN
Keterangan dokumentari dan lisan - Sama ada YM merupakan pekerja kepada DPMM - Kontrak perkhidmatan YM dengan DPMM Bina - Sama ada DPMM mempunyai kawalan terhadap dan memberi arahan kepada YM - Kesannya - Sama ada syarikat menganggap DPMM Bina dan SPD sebagai entiti yang berbeza - Keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh syarikat - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Muslim Abdullah lwn. Dewan Perniagaan Melayu Malaysia
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham)
Saksi - Sama ada saksi-saksi yang material dipanggil dalam siasatan dalaman - Kesannya - Sama ada responden mengetahui tentang kepentingan memanggil saksi-saksi tersebut - Langkah-langkah yang diambil oleh responden untuk menghubungi saksi-saksi tersebut - Kesannya - Sama ada adverse inference boleh digunapakai terhadap responden - Apa itu adverse inference - Sama ada sesuai dipakai terhadap responden di dalam kes ini - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 30(5) & Akta Keterangan 1950 s. 114(g)
Wan Raselan Wan Husin lwn. Koperasi Polis Diraja Malaysia Berhad
(Roslan Mat Nor)
Saksi - Siapa yang harus memulakan kes - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - YM memberi keterangannya sebelum responden menutup kesnya - Sama ada ianya memprejudiskan kes YM - Sama ada perbicaraan kes secara sedemikian boleh dianggap sebagai adil kepada YM - Kesannya - Pihak-pihak tidak membantah - Kesannya -Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967 aturan 22
Sugumari Jeganathan lwn. SCICOM (MSC) Berhad
(Roslan Mat Nor)
MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN
Remedi - Gaji kebelakang - YM diberikan elaun petrol bulanan - Sama ada ianya merupakan satu elaun tetap - Kesannya - Sama ada ia harus diambil kira di dalam mengira gaji kebelakang YM - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967
Muslim Abdullah lwn. Dewan Perniagaan Melayu Malaysia
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham)
Remedi - Penempatan semula - Sama ada ianya sesuai untuk diawardkan - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967
Muslim Abdullah lwn. Dewan Perniagaan Melayu Malaysia
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham)
PEMBUANGAN KERJA
Pemecatan secara konstruktif - YM diberi surat amaran - Kesan surat amaran tersebut - Sama ada YM telah diberi peluang untuk menjawab kepada kandungan surat amaran tersebut - Kesannya - YM meminta syarikat menarik balik surat amaran tersebut - Syarikat tidak mengambil tindakan - Sama ada tingkah laku syarikat menunjukkan bahawa syarikat tidak lagi mempunyai niat untuk meneruskan dengan perjanjian pekerjaannya dengan YM - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Sugumari Jeganathan lwn. SCICOM (MSC) Berhad
(Roslan Mat Nor)
Perpindahan - YM dilantik oleh DPMM Bina dan dipecat oleh DPMM - Kedua-dua syarikat merupakan entiti berlainan - Hubungan antara kedua syarikat tersebut - Sama ada DPMM merupakan majikan kepada YM - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Muslim Abdullah lwn. Dewan Perniagaan Melayu Malaysia
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham)
Perpindahan - YM mula bekerja dengan DPMM Bina - DPMM Bina merupakan anak syarikat kepada DPMM - Kesannya - YM kemudiannya dipindahkan oleh DPMM - Sama ada perpindahan YM tersebut adalah sementara - Kesannya - DPMM dan SPD digulung - DPMM diambil alih oleh jawatankuasa baru - YM kemudiannya telah ditamatkan perkhidmatannya - Alasan bagi penamatan perkhidmatan YM - Sama ada telah dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Muslim Abdullah lwn. Dewan Perniagaan Melayu Malaysia
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham)
Salahlaku - YM dituduh memberikan komisyen kepada pihak ketiga yang melanggari arahan lembaga pengarah responden - Jawatan yang dipegang oleh YM dalam koperasi responden - Sama ada tindakan YM tertakluk kepada arahan lembaga pengarah - Sama ada YM telah diarahkan oleh pegawai atasannya berkenaan pembayaran komisyen - Keterangan dan saksi yang dikemukakan oleh responden - Kesannya - Sama ada responden berjaya memenuhi beban buktinya - Kesannya - Sama ada responden berjaya membuktikan salahlaku YM - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan munasabah - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Wan Raselan Wan Husin lwn. Koperasi Polis Diraja Malaysia Berhad
(Roslan Mat Nor)
Salahlaku - YM dituduh memberikan komisyen kepada pihak ketiga yang melanggari arahan lembaga pengarah responden - Sama ada dibuktikan oleh responden - Keterangan dan saksi yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada responden berjaya memenuhi beban buktinya - Kesannya - YM mendakwa mematuhi arahan pihak atasannya - Sama ada dapat disangkal oleh responden - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan munasabah - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Wan Raselan Wan Husin lwn. Koperasi Polis Diraja Malaysia Berhad
(Roslan Mat Nor)
REMEDI
Pampasan - Gaji tertunggak - Bagaimana dikira - YM tidak bekerja selepas dibuang kerja oleh responden - Kesannya - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967
Wan Raselan Wan Husin lwn. Koperasi Polis Diraja Malaysia Berhad
(Roslan Mat Nor)
Perlantikan semula - YM meninggalkan responden 3 tahun lalu - Sama ada perlantikan semula merupakan suatu remedi yang sesuai diberikan - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967
Wan Raselan Wan Husin lwn. Koperasi Polis Diraja Malaysia Berhad
(Roslan Mat Nor)
SIASATAN DALAMAN
Dapatan - Nota keterangan prosiding - YM tidak mempertikaikan kesahihan nota keterangan prosiding siasatan dalaman - Kesannya - Sama ada terdapat perlanggaran mana-mana prinsip keadilan asasi terhadap YM - Kesannya - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 30(5)
Wan Raselan Wan Husin lwn. Koperasi Polis Diraja Malaysia Berhad
(Roslan Mat Nor)
Kesilapan prosidur - Sama ada wujud - Panel siasatan dalaman pertama digugurkan - Sebabnya - Sama ada pengguguran tersebut dibuat dengan tujuan mala fide - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Kesannya - Sama ada DI tersebut telah dijalankan secara teratur - Kesannya - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 30(5)
Wan Raselan Wan Husin lwn. Koperasi Polis Diraja Malaysia Berhad
(Roslan Mat Nor)