SEK 20 AWARD 18281

7/29/2019 SEK 20 AWARD 18281

1/21

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA

CASE NO. : 3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

BETWEEN

TAN YEOK WAH

AND

AYAMAS FOOD CORPORATION SDN. BHD.

AWARD NO. : 165 OF 2013

Before : PUAN ANNA NG FUI CHOO - Chairman(Sitting Alone)

Venue : Industrial Court Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur

Date ofReference : 20.2.2008

Dates of

Mention

: 21.4.2008, 4.6.2008, 13.8.2008, 17.10.2008,

5.12.2008, 6.1.2009, 23.1.2009, 3.4.2009,20.4.2009, 6.5.2009, 27.8.2009, 19.3.2010,23.6.2010, 28.7.2010, 25.8.2010, 15.11.2010,18.2.2011, 18.4.2011, 22.4.2011, 9.6.2011,22.7.2011, 3.8.2011, 16.11.2011, 22.11.2011,20.12.2011, 17.1.2012, 30.4.2012

Dates ofHearing

: 10.9.2009, 11.12.2009, 6.4.2010, 9.8.2010,10.8.2010, 19.4.2011, 24.5.2011, 13.7.2011,

24.8.2011, 7.9.2011, 1.11.2011, 2.11.2011,7.12.2011, 13.6.2012, 16.7.2012, 8.8.2012,7.9.2012

WrittenSubmissions : 15.10.2012, 16.10.2012

1

7/29/2019 SEK 20 AWARD 18281

2/21

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

Representation : Mr. Vinod KamalanathanFrom Messrs Vinod Kamalanathan & AssociatesCounsel for the Claimant

Ms. Wan Sarimah Bte Wan HusainFrom Messrs Zainal Abidin & CoCounsel for the Company

Reference

This is a reference made under section 20 (3) of the Industrial

Relations Act 1967 (the Act) arising out of the dismissal ofTan Yeok

Wah (hereinafter referred to as the Claimant) by Ayamas FoodCorporation Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as the Company) on 15

June 2006.

AWARD

[1] The Ministerial reference in this case required the Court to hear

and determine the Claimants complaint of dismissal by the Company on

15 June 2006.

[2] The hearing of this case commenced on 10 September 2009

before learned Chairman Mr. Franklin Goonting and had continued

thereafter on various dates. Mr. Goonting's contract as a Chairmanended on 31 December 2011 so this case was transferred to this court

by the learned President to facilitate the continuation of the trial. The

third witness of the Company (COW3) was in the midst of his cross-

examination when this case was heard before me. This court had the

opportunity to hear his evidence and the last Company's witness before

the Claimant and her witness gave evidence in the Claimant's case.

2

7/29/2019 SEK 20 AWARD 18281

3/21

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

[3] The Claimant was first employed by the Company as a general

clerk with effect from 17 August 1981. At the time of her dismissal, the

Claimant held the position of Broiler Executive and her last drawn

monthly salary was RM3,500.00. The Claimant confirmed that the

nature of her duties as a Broiler Executive were inter alia the following:

(a) attending to customers that have obtained the contract for

disposal of chicken parts and to walk in customers who

intended to purchase the chicken parts;

(b) processing documentation for the disposal of the chicken

parts; and

(c) doing a market survey with regard to the disposal of chicken

parts and producing it to the management.

Facts Leading to the Claimants Dismissal

[4] On 24 May 2006, the Claimant received a suspension letter from

the Company alleging that she had received 'kick back' from several

buyers of the Company. On that day itself, a meeting was held by the

Company for the purpose of investigation into the alleged misconduct of

the Claimant. The said meeting was attended by the Claimant whilst the

Company was represented by the Senior General Manager, Group

Human Resources and Security, Mr. Hishamudin Mon, the Vice

President of Integrated Poultry and Manufacturing Mr. Alan Au and the

General Manager of Internal Audit, Mr. Edmund Loong (COW2). The

Claimant was suspended on full pay from 24 May 2006 to 6 June 2006.

3

7/29/2019 SEK 20 AWARD 18281

4/21

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

[5] After the 24 May 2006 meeting, the Claimant was given a letter

dated 30 May 2006 (pages 6 and 7 of the Company's Bundle of

Documents (COB)) containing another allegation that she had received

a Maybank cheque no. 641958 dated 28 April 2006 amounting to

RM5,000.00 which was banked into her Maybank account number

512558110454. In the same letter, the Claimant was told to attend an

inquiry on 6 June 2006 at 9.00am which was to be held at the

headquarters of the Company at Kuala Lumpur. The Claimant attended

the domestic inquiry (DI) where one Mr. Chew Kah Poh (COW3) was

called as a witness of the Company.

[6] The charges of misconduct preferred against the Claimant were

the following:

(i) That you, while in the employment of the Company as

Broiler Executive at Ayamas Corporation Sdn Bhd, Port

Klang between the period of 1 January 1999 and May 2006,

had accepted from one buyer name Mr. Chew Kah Poh

monetary reward for dealings that you have with his

Company on behalf of the Company whether you knew or

ought to have known that such practices were improper,

against the interest of the Company and in breach ofCompany's rules and regulations and policies thereby

committing a serious act of misconduct. The details of the

payments accepted are as follows:

7.4.2004 RM1,950.00 Maybank Account 512558110454



4

7/29/2019 SEK 20 AWARD 18281

5/21

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

(ii) That you, while in the employment of the Company as Broiler

Executive at Ayamas Corporation Sdn Bhd, Port Klang

between the period of 1 January 2006 and May 2006, had

accepted from one buyer name Mr. Chew Kah Poh a further

monetary reward for dealings that you have with his

Company on behalf of the Company whether you knew or

ought to have known that such practices were improper,

against the interest of the Company and in breach of

Company's rules, regulations and policies thereby

committing a serious act of misconduct. The details of the

payment accepted is as follows:

Maybank Cheque No. 641958 dated 28 April 2006 in the

amount of RM5,000.00.

[7] In the Company's letter dated 14 June 2006 (page 33 of COB) the

Claimant was notified that her service was terminated with effect from

15 June 2006.

The Domestic Inquiry (DI)

[8] The DI proceeded on 6 June 2006 and after hearing the testimonyof three (3) Company's witnesses and after considering the facts and

circumstances surrounding the case, the inquiry panel unanimously

found the Claimant guilty of the charges of misconduct levelled against

her (page 32 of COB). Having regard to the findings of the inquiry panel

and the seriousness of the charges of misconduct of which the Claimant

was found guilty of, the Company decided to dismiss the Claimant.

5

7/29/2019 SEK 20 AWARD 18281

6/21

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

[9] In the course of the hearing of this case, the former learned

Chairman presiding over this matter made a ruling that the charges

preferred against the Claimant were not proper and held that the

domestic inquiry conducted involving the Claimant was null and void.

Hence, it was ordered that the parties were not to rely on the domestic

inquiry proceedings against the Claimant. Consequently, the Company

would have to prove denovo the charges against the Claimant before

this Court.

[10] The Company relied on the authority of Wong Yuen Hock v.

Syarikat Hong Leong Assurance Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [1995] 3

CLJ 344 which followed the decision of the Supreme Court in

Dreamland Corporation (M) Sdn Bhd v. Choong Chin Sooi & Industrial

Court of Malaysia [1988] 1 CLJ 1 that a defective inquiry or failure to

hold a domestic inquiry is not a fatality but only an irregularity curable by

de novo proceedings before the Industrial Court.

[11] InWong Yuen Hock v. Syarikat Hong Leong Assurance Sdn Bhd

& Another Appeal,supra, it was stated:

It was not within the ambit of the reference for the Industrial

Court to determine whether Hong Leong ought to be punishedfor failing to hold a domestic inquiry. The Industrial Court was

not competent to declare the dismissal void for failure to

comply with the rule of natural justice. The very purpose of the

inquiry before the Industrial Court was to give both parties to

the dispute an opportunity to be heard irrespective of whether

there was a need for the employer to hold a contractual or

statutory inquiry. We were confident that the Industrial

Court as constituted at present was capable of arriving at fair

6

7/29/2019 SEK 20 AWARD 18281

7/21

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

result by fair means on all matters referred to it. If therefore

there had been a procedural breach on natural justice

committed by the employer at the initial stage, there was no

reason why it could not be cured at the re-hearing by the

Industrial Court..

The Company's Case

[12] The Company called four (4) witnesses to prove the charges of

misconduct for which the Claimant was found guilty of i.e. that theClaimant had accepted from COW3 monetary rewards which were paid

into the Claimant's account. It was not disputed that the Maybank

account number 512558110454 had belonged to the Claimant.

[13] During the trial, Ms. Chan Swee Kheng (COW1) confirmed that

she had on 22 May 2006 prepared a report on allegations of misconduct

involving the Claimant to the Senior General Manager, Group Human

Resources and Security of the Company. A copy of the report is found

at pages 3 and 4 of COB. COW1 confirmed that the report was

prepared by her upon receiving the instruction from Ms. PP Foo (Ms Foo

Peng Peng - COW4), who was personally informed of the Claimant's

alleged misconduct by one customer known as Mr. Chew Kah Poh.

[14] COW4 was the Managing Director of KFC Marketing Sdn Bhd, a

wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. Prior to that appointment in

2008, she was the Senior Vice President in Sales and Marketing

Division of Ayamas Food Corporation Sdn Bhd in Port Klang. She

stated in her witness statement that COW3 went to see her at her office

in Kuala Lumpur on 15 May 2006. It was to express his disappointment

7

7/29/2019 SEK 20 AWARD 18281

8/21

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

on his failure to secure the tender for purchase of offal meal with the

Company. During the meeting, COW3 informed her about the monies

which had been paid to the Claimant during the business transactions

with the Company in order to maintain smooth sales' transactions as

requested by the Claimant. The payments were mostly cash payments

and only a few payments were made vide herbank account.

[15] COW4 had asked COW3 to substantiate his complaint with

supporting documents which he did. COW3 had returned to see COW4

with the documents on pages 10 to 12 of COB. Upon disclosure of the

documents, COW4 contacted COW1 to look into the matter as she was

the Sales Manager and at the material time, she was the Claimant's

superior. The meeting with COW4 on 15 May 2006 was also confirmed

by COW3 in his evidence.

[16] Under cross-examination, COW4 said she had known COW3 and

his late father for many years because of business dealings. COW3

was considered one of the big customers of the Company because

waste collection was a specialised field. She said that in theory, the

Claimant had to report everything to COW1 and to get approval from the

top management according to set procedures. However, in the

production of wastes, the quantity could only be determined at the endof the business day so the figures fluctuated. The top management

would have fixed the pricing on the estimated quantity but the actual

quantity could only be determined at the end of the business day. She

claimed that the Claimant was entrusted with the job to decide on behalf

of the Company who to sell the excess to.

8

7/29/2019 SEK 20 AWARD 18281

9/21

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

[17] COW2 stated in his witness statement that he was summoned to

attend the meeting held on 24 May 2006 together with Mr. Hishamudin

Mon and Mr. Alan Au. He further testified that during the meeting, the

Claimant had explained that the Maybank cheque for the sum of

RM5,000.00 was given by COW3 to the Claimant for the purpose of the

renewal of his insurance policy. However, when she was shown the

copies of the deposit slips, the Claimant was alleged to have said that

she had received and used up the monies. However, she said that she

had never asked for the money from COW3.

[18] COW3's evidence in chief was to the effect that:

(a) the Claimant herself asked and/or requested for payment

from COW3 to ensure smooth business transactions with the

Company and also for assisting COW3 to introduce new and

potential buyers to COW3;

(b) the payments were either made in cash, telegraphic transfer

or cheques;

(c) he did not keep proper record on cash payments but there

were three (3) deposit slips provided by COW3 as proof ofpayments made to the Claimant;

(d) the details of the deposit slips are as particularised in

paragraph 6 above;

(e) the monies were paid into the Claimant's Maybank account

as requested by the Claimant;

9

7/29/2019 SEK 20 AWARD 18281

10/21

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

(f) that every time there was a reduction in price, the amount of

commission asked to be paid to the Claimant was calculated

based on the margin of the reduced price multiplied by the

tonnage of the goods collected by COW3;

(g) the Maybank account no. 512558110454 was provided by

the Claimant to COW3 via text message; and

(h) the Claimant had called him on the telephone to bank in the

money.

The Claimant's Case

[19] The Claimant denied the Company's allegations based on these

reasons:

(a) The contracts were awarded by the Company itself.

(b) The disposal price was determined by the Company itself.

(c) The Claimant had no authority nor was she involved in the

decision making of the above contracts and the disposalprice.

(d) It was the Company that decided to give the contract to

COW3 and she had no authority to decide to whom the

contracts were to be given to.

10

7/29/2019 SEK 20 AWARD 18281

11/21

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

(e) COW3 did not know how to write simple letters or filled up

certain forms either to the Company or to other related

authorities.

(f) In those circumstances, the Claimant was instructed by her

superior, Mr. Kevin Chang being the Deputy Manager of the

Company to assist COW3 in respect of matters stated in

paragraph (e) above.

(g) The cheque for RM5,000.00 was given to the Claimant to

assist COW3 with his insurance payment.

[20] On the excess stock, the Claimant said the new price was decided

by Dr. Kooi and the price would be conveyed to her by Mr. Kevin Chang

or COW1. The Claimant's role was to fill the forms for the customers so

they could propose their reduced prices to be considered by Dr. Kooi

and for his approval. Once the price was approved by him, the form

would be sent to the Claimant and for the products and stocks to be

processed, usually by Mr. Azami. The Claimant also denied that she

had ever given her bank accountnumber to COW3. She said COW3

was close to Mr. Azami who worked at the factory where the products

and stocks were collected and Mr. Azami was also in charge of the

Personnel Department. Her Maybank account was also used to credit

her monthly salary. She stated she was never aware that monies had

been banked into her account by COW3 or that she had received any

commission of any sort from him. In cross-examination, she said that

her brother used to deposit money to her Maybank account because she

is single and lived with her mother and took care of her.

11

7/29/2019 SEK 20 AWARD 18281

12/21

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

[21] The Claimant explained that the cheque on page 11 of COB was

the payment for COW3's insurance cover while page 15 of COB was the

official receipt issued by the insurance company i.e. Great Eastern Life

Assurance (Malaysia) Berhad for the said payment. CLW2 was the

Claimant's niece who testified that she had helped COW3 to renew his

insurance. She said that her aunt i.e. the Claimant had called her some

time at the end of April 2006 and had asked her to help COW3 to re-

instate his insurance policy. She said she had told the Claimant that she

could do so and that to re-instate the policy would cost him about

RM5,000.00 since his yearly payment was RM2,293.00 with late

payment charges and interest. She confirmed the RM5,000.00 payout

made to the Claimant for the said insurance policy that had been

received.

The Function of the Court

[22 ] In theFederal Court case ofMilan Auto Sdn Bhd v. Wong Seh

Yen[1995] 4 CLJ 449, it was authoritatively stated as follows:

As pointed out by the Court recently in Wong Yuen Hock v.

Syarikat Hong Leong Assurance Sdn Bhd [1995] 2 MLJ 753,the

function of the Industrial Court in dismissal cases on a reference

under s. 20 is twofold, first, to determine whether the misconduct

complained of by the employer has been established, and

secondly, whether the proven misconduct constitutes just cause

or excuse for the dismissal..

12

7/29/2019 SEK 20 AWARD 18281

13/21

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

[23] On the duty of the court, in Goon Kwee Phoy v. J & P (M) Bhd

[1981] 2 MLJ 129, his Lordship Raja Azlan Shah CJ Malaya (as his HRH

then was) at page 136 expressed:

Where representations are made and are referred to the

Industrial Court for enquiry, it is the duty of that court to

determine whether the termination or dismissal is with or

without just cause or excuse. If the employer chooses to give

a reason for the action taken by him, the duty of the Industrial

Court will be to enquire whether the excuse or reason has orhas not been made out. If it finds as a fact that it has not been

proved, then the inevitable conclusion must be the termination

or dismissal was without just cause or excuse. The proper

enquiry of the court is the reason advanced by it and that court

or the High Court cannot go into another reason not relied on

by the employer or find one for it..

Evaluation of Evidence

[24] It is a principle of industrial jurisprudence that in a dismissal case,

the employer must produce convincing and cogent evidence that the

workman committed the offence or offences he is alleged to have

committed for which he has been dismissed. The onus of proof lies on

the Company and the standard that is required is on a balance of

probabilities.

[25] It was laid down in the case ofTelekom Malaysia Kawasan Utara

v. Krishnan Kutty Sanguni Nair & Anor [2002] 3 CLJ 314 that the

standard of proof is not beyond reasonable doubt in such cases of

13

7/29/2019 SEK 20 AWARD 18281

14/21

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

misconduct which are related to dishonest acts. At page 327 his

Lordship Abdul Hamid Mohamad JCA (as he then was) said:

Thus, we can see that the preponderant view is that the

Industrial Court, when hearing a claim of unjust dismissal,

even where the ground is one of dishonest act, including

theft, is not required to be satisfied beyond reasonable

doubt that the employee has committed the offence, as in a

criminal prosecution. On the other hand, we see that the

courts and learned authors have used such terms as solid

and sensible grounds, sufficient to measure up to a

preponderance of the evidence, whether a case has

been made out, on the balance of probabilities and

evidence of probative value. In our view the passage

quoted from Administrative Law by H.W.R. Wade & C.F.

Forsyth offers the clearest statement on the standard of proof

required, that is the civil standard based on the balance of

probabilities, which is flexible, so that the degree of

probability required is proportionate to the nature of gravity of

the issue..

[26] In the submission of learned counsel for the Claimant, he had

proposed and summarised the reasons for COW3's complaints against

the Claimant of which were:

(i) The Claimant had always assisted COW3 in getting the

chicken parts at a reduced price. Therefore, once he had

disposed the chicken parts to a third party at a higher price,

he then shared the profits with the Claimant and that was her

commission.

14

7/29/2019 SEK 20 AWARD 18281

15/21

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

(ii) The Claimant had assisted him in writing letters to Mr. Azami

who worked at the factory where the products and stocks

were collected, to obtain the stock at a reduced price and for

this assistance, once he sold the stock and received the

profit, he had paid her commission.

(iii) The Claimant had apparently given the tender of chicken

products and stock to another company and since he could

not get the tender, he had complained about her.

(iv) He had bought some goods from the Company at a reduced

price and he had supplied those goods to a company called

Beram & Co. but they had failed to pay him for the said

goods. COW3 lodged the complaint against the Claimant

because he thought she was involved.

[27] The Company is not required to prove the motives of COW3 for

complaining against the Claimant which had prompted the Company to

probe into the alleged misconduct which subsequently led to her

dismissal. The duty of this court is to enquire if the Company had made

out the excuse or reason for the Claimant's dismissal as stated in the

Federal Court case ofGoon Kwee Phoy v. J & P (M) Bhd, supra.

[28] It is not disputed that the Claimant was dismissed after the panel

of the Company's DI had found her guilty of the charges against her. In

this court, the previous learned Chairman had ruled that the DI was null

and void due to the defective charges preferred against the Claimant. It

is now incumbent upon this court to peruse the evidence adduced in this

hearing as to whether the misconduct has been proved by the Company

15

7/29/2019 SEK 20 AWARD 18281

16/21

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

and if the dismissal of the Claimant was for a just cause or excuse. It

must be emphasized that on the authority ofGoon KweePhoy's case

supra, her dismissal must be based on the reasons advanced by the

Company and those were the two (2) charges of misconduct against her

as alleged by the Company through COW3.

[29] This court has read the notes taken in the proceedings and noted

that all the Company's witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-

examination, in particular COW3. COW3 was a customer of the

Company and used to obtain chicken parts such as offal meals, chicken

heads and chicken feet to feed the fish in his fish farm. He gave his

testimony in court with the aid of a Chinese interpreter and he had

spoken in the Hokkien dialect. However, there were many occasions

when he had replied either in broken English or Bahasa Malaysia, as

and when he felt comfortable. Aspersions were cast on him to discredit

his evidence that he had little formal education so he could not have

possibly written the deposit slips for the monies that were banked into

the Claimant's account. He did clarify that he knows and writes the

alphabet. From COW3's mannerism and conduct in court, the court

finds that he was not as ignorant or illiterate as he was perceived to be.

He was a businessman who knew how to get things done, in his own

ways.

[30] COW3 did not deny he was disappointed with the Company's

new administration when it decided on a tender basis for chicken parts

and he had failed to secure the tender. It was for this reason that he

had gone to see COW4 on 15 June 2006, a fact which COW4 admitted

in her witness statement that Mr. Chew came to see me at my office in

Kuala Lumpur to express his disappointment on his failure to secure the

16

7/29/2019 SEK 20 AWARD 18281

17/21

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

tender for purchase of offal meal with Ayamas Food Corporation Sdn

Bhd. It was also in that meeting that it was exposed that COW3 had

allegedly been paying the Claimant for whatever favours she had done

for him. It was alleged that he had been paying the Claimant for many

years so the first charge against the Claimant was for the period 1

January 1999 and May 2006 which was over a period of more than

seven (7) years. However, the details of the payments given were on 7

April 2004, 4 June 2004 and 1 July 2004 based on the deposit slips. It

is clear that it was well over two (2) years after the monies were

deposited into the account that COW3 decided to bring the matter up

with the Company's management. It is even clearer to the court that he

was disgruntled with the Company because he had failed to secure the

tender. He agreed in cross-examination that he did not lodge a written

complaint against the Claimant because he had no intention to complain

against her.

[31] Being a known customer of the Company which went back to his

late father's time, it appeared that COW3 was very familiar and

generous with the Company staff and senior management. In his

evidence in chief, he said that he used to give cash, sometimes

cheques, to people who helped him. In cross-examination, he admitted

that he had given oranges, hampers and lunch to the Company's staffduring Chinese New Year. In the Claimant's witness statement, she

claimed that COW3 had sent boxes of oranges to the staff and large

hampers to Dr. Kooi and COW4 and other senior management officers.

COW3 was also alleged to have given the staff lunch and taken some of

the male staff and senior management for karaoke sessions.

17

7/29/2019 SEK 20 AWARD 18281

18/21

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

[32] The Company has to prove that the Claimant had received

monetary reward for dealings with COW3's company on behalf of the

Company as stated in the first charge of which such practices were

improper, against the interest of the Company and in breach of

Company's rules, regulations and policies. In their witness statements

and in court, both COW1 and COW2 referred to what they had related

as witnesses in the DI. The reference to the DI notes was a futile

exercise because the DI had been held to be invalid so that evidence

does not carry any weight in this hearing. These witnesses had also

referred to the documents in COB in their witness statements but did not

give further evidence of their knowledge on the allegations against the

Claimant. Neither did they provide any Company rules, regulations and

policies which could tie down the Claimant or any other staff of any

practices that were considered improper. The report prepared by

COW1 on page 3 of COB contained an error on the date of the cheque

which was stated 28 May 2006 when it should have been 28 April

2006.

[33] The court is also in total agreement with the former learned

Chairman that the charges were defective. The first charge was

defective because the misconduct was alleged to have been committed

over a span of seven (7) years and yet, the payments alleged to havebeen paid to the Claimant were over four (4) months in 2004. The oral

complaint lodged by COW3 was in May 2006, a considerable lapse of

time of more than two (2) years after the alleged payments were made.

No reasons were proffered as to why he had chosen to remain silent but

made the alleged payments regularly to the Claimant. This puts his

credibility to test and the court has to be cautious in accepting his

evidence because there was no other evidence that corroborated or

18

7/29/2019 SEK 20 AWARD 18281

19/21

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

supported his evidence. The court finds that the only evidence against

the Claimant were the deposits allegedly paid into her account and

COW3's oral testimony in court. Since he was subjected to a lengthy

and intense cross-examination, he was not consistent in his answers

and gave conflicting replies, especially on the RM5,000.00 cheque and

whether it was for the payment of his insurance.

[34] COW3 had given various reasons why he had given the Claimant

money but the Company has failed to prove that it was within the

powers of the Claimant to do favours for COW3. The procedure for

disposing the excess offal set has already been explained earlier. The

Claimant had testified that she hardly saw COW3 because her office

was on the 2nd floor and the goods were collected by COW3 on the

ground floor. She agreed under cross-examination that communications

were mostly over the telephone and she had met customers including

COW3, once a week or a fortnight.

[35] It is obvious to this court that the investigations and actions taken

against the Claimant were hastily handled by the Company.

Considering the evidence of this case in its totality, the court finds that

the Company has not proved the first charge against the Claimant.

[36] On the second charge, the Claimant's explanation was consistent

from the time she was questioned by the Company on the RM5,000.00

Maybank cheque on 24 May 2006 until she testified in court. On the

insurance, COW3 had agreed that page 15 of COB was the official

receipt for his insurance cover. He also said he received the insurance

cover although he denied receiving the official receipt. The second

charge was related to the Maybank cheque which was dated 28 April

19

7/29/2019 SEK 20 AWARD 18281

20/21

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

2006. The receipt issued by Great Eastern was dated 29 May 2006 for

the amount of RM4,634.97 which was close to RM5,000.00. From the

evidence of COW3, the Claimant and CLW2 the court is satisfied with

the Claimant's explanation that the cheque payment for the amount of

RM5,000.00 was for paying the insurance cover of COW3.

[37] As in the first charge, the Claimant faced the second charge that

between the period of 1 January 2006 and May 2006 she had

accepted a further monetary reward for dealings from COW3. There

was no evidence adduced that the Claimant had received the monetary

reward during that period of time for dealings that she had with COW3's

Company on behalf of the Company. Having so found, the court rules

that the second charge against the Claimant has not been proved either.

In arriving at this decision, this court has taken into consideration section

30 (5) of the Act and acted with equity, good conscience and the

substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities and legal

form.

Findings and Remedy

[38] Since the Company has failed to prove the misconduct alleged to

have been committed by the Claimant in both of the charges, it meansthat the ensuing dismissal of the Claimant was without just cause or

excuse. The court opines that reinstatement would not be an

appropriate remedy since the Claimant has been dismissed for more

than six (6) years and it is not in the best interest of the Company or the

Claimant to order as such. The Claimant said she had not been able to

find a permanent job since her dismissal due to her age (50 on the date

of dismissal) but she had held temporary jobs and Tupperware parties.

20

7/29/2019 SEK 20 AWARD 18281

21/21

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

The Company did not bring in any evidence of the Claimant's post

dismissal earnings.

[39] Having considered the above, the court hereby makes the

following orders:

Back wages @ RM3,500.00

(being the Claimant's last drawn pay)

x 24 months : RM84,000.00

Compensationin lieu of

reinstatement @ RM3,500.00

x 24 (for each year of service) : RM84,000.00

---------------------

Total : RM168,000.00============

[40] Accordingly, the Company is to pay the Claimant the total sum

after deducting the necessary statutory deductions, if any, through her

solicitors Messrs Vinod Kamalanathan & Associates within 30 days from

the date of this award.

HANDED DOWN AND DATED THIS 18 DAY OF JANUARY 2013

...

( ANNA NG FUI CHOO )CHAIRMAN

INDUSTRIAL COURT, MALAYSIA

KUALA LUMPUR

21