4-743/06 between encik adar bin ya and proton ... - Industrial Court

notes also, the court discovers that although the claimant was given the
right to cross-examine the witnesses in the said DI but the DI notes did
not indicate whether that the claimant was given the opportunity to
explain his side of the story. In fact based on the DI notes, the court finds
that after all the witnesses have given their evidence the DI panel
straight away proceeded with the submissions by the parties. Thus, the
court is of view that such conduct cannot be said to be in line with a fair
hearing to the claimant but that it was more inclined to be unfair and/or
prejudicial to the claimant. This court is further of the view that even
though a DI proceeding cannot be equated with any court proceedings
with the technicalities regarding the standard of proof, the rules of
evidence and procedure that are applied and the fact that each
organization may conduct a DI in a manner convenient to them,
nevertheless, the very fundamental principle of natural justice is that an
employee accused of any misconduct must be given a fair hearing, by fair
hearing it includes the conduct of the hearing of the DI to be unbiased
and fair and that the employee be given the opportunity of being heard
of his defence which includes the opportunity to face and challenge his
accuser. In B Surinder Singh Kanda v. The Government of the Federation
of Malaya [1962] 1 LNS 14, Lord Denning in delivering the judgment of
the Privy Council stated as follows:
“If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth
anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know
the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence
has been given and what statements have been made affecting him:
and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or
11