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

The Law
In relation to misconduct the court refers to the case of Menara
Panglobal Sdn. Bhd. v. Arokianathan Sivapiragasam [2006] 2 CLJ 501 a
case again by the Court of Appeal which reiterated the principle that the
main and only function of the Industrial Court in dealing with a reference
under section 20 of the Act is to determine whether the misconduct or
irregularities complained of by the company as to the grounds of
dismissal were in fact committed by the workman and if so, whether such
grounds constitute just cause or excuse for the dismissal.
It is trite and a well known jurisprudence that for dismissal cases, the
employer bears the burden of proof that the dismissal was with just
cause or excuse on a standard of proof which is on a balance of
probabilities; see Goon Kwee Phoy v. J & P Coats (M) Bhd. [1981] 1 LNS
30; [1981] 2 MLJ 129; Telekom Malaysia Kawasan Utara v. Krishnan Kutty
Sanguni Nair & Anor [2002] 3 CLJ 314.
Issues
Before proceeding further, it is mundane to state here that the Court will
only determine the validity of the claimant's dismissal in accordance with
his termination letter. In Gan Chee Ming v. TN Forklift Holdings Sdn.
Bhd. & Anor [2001] 6 CLJ 13, His Lordship Faiza Tamby Chik J said at p.
18 of the following:
5