|
SHAHARUL MIZA MUHAMAD v. SERBA DINAMIK INTERNATIONAL LTD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
ANNA NG FUI CHOO
AWARD NO. 1179 OF 2021 [CASE NO: 3/4-756/20]
19 JULY 2021
DISMISSAL: Misconduct – Whether the claimant had been involved in corrupt and fraudulent activities – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Claimant’s explanations and defence – Whether could be accepted – Effect of – Whether the charge had been proven against him – Whether it had warranted his dismissal
DISMISSAL: Notice of termination – Reasons for his dismissal in his termination letter different from the charge in the show cause letter and at the DI – Effect of – Whether the charge had been proven against him – Claimant’s defence – Company’s actions towards him – What it had shown – Whether his dismissal had been warranted – Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse
DOMESTIC INQUIRY: Charges – Whether the charge brought against the claimant had been defective for want of material particulars – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of
DOMESTIC INQUIRY: Procedural impropriety – Chairman of the DI involved in the investigation against the claimant – Whether there had been a real likelihood of bias against the claimant – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of
DOMESTIC INQUIRY: Procedural impropriety – Whether the DI had been more of a question and answer session, with the panel members participating actively – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether it had been a fishing expedition – Whether valid
EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence – Findings of the DI – Whether could be accepted – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of
ZAINOL RASHID NORDDIN v. MALAYSIA BUILDING SOCIETY BERHAD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
NOOR RUWENA MOHD NURDIN
EMPLOYEES’ PANEL: ALIAS ABDULLAH
EMPLOYERS’ PANEL: ROHIZAT BAHARUM
AWARD NO. 1225 OF 2021 [CASE NO: 2(12)/6-610/20]
16 AUGUST 2021
INDUSTRIAL COURT: Jurisdiction – Applicant claiming for deductions of contractual payments from the Respondent – Whether this Court had been the proper forum to determine the issue – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – What the said Award had stipulated and the intention of the Learned Chairman
INTERPRETATION: Award – Whether the phrase “less statutory deductions (if any)” had attracted EPF contributions and income tax payments – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 33(1) and Employees Provident Fund Act 1991, s. 2
INTERPRETATION: Award – Whether the phrase “less statutory deductions (if any)” had attracted Staff Provident Fund (SPF) contributions, Retirement Gratuity, Service Gratuity and Subordinate Staff Gratuity payable by the Respondent – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether this Court had been the proper forum to determine the issue – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 33(1) and Employees Provident Fund Act 1991, s. 2
WORDS & PHRASES: “less statutory deductions (if any)” – What deductions it attracted – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of
|
