CASE HIGHTLIGHTS

SURESH K VELAUTHAN v. PETRONAS ICT SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
RAJESWARI KARUPIAH
AWARD NO. 900 OF 2019 [CASE NO: 32(12)/4-111/16]
8 MARCH 2019

DISMISSAL: Notice of termination – Forced resignation – Mutual Separation Package (‘MSP’) – What is its purpose and how it works – Whether the claimant had been forced to sign it – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Company’s actions towards him – What it had shown – Claimant’s actions – What it had been indicative of – Whether he had accepted the MSP voluntarily – Whether he had been dismissed by the company – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse

DISMISSAL: Notice of termination – Forced resignation – MSP – Whether the claimant had signed it voluntarily – Whether he had protested against it – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Claimant’s position and seniority – What his actions had shown – Whether he had successfully proven that he had been forced to sign the MSP – Evaluation of the evidence – Effect of

EVIDENCE: Burden of proof – Whether discharged by the claimant in this case – Evidence adduced – Effect of

RAJA NAZIM RAJA NAZUDDIN v. PADU CORPORATION
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
SAROJINI KANDASAMY
AWARD NO. 967 OF 2019 [CASE NO: 27(19)/4-47/16]
18 MARCH 2019

DISMISSAL: Attendance – Truancy – Whether the claimant had been frequently absent from work without leave – Claimant admitting to it – His defence – Whether could be accepted – Whether the misconduct had been proven against him

DISMISSAL: Breach of company rules and policies – Confidentiality of company information – Whether he had disclosed confidential information to third parties – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether he had been in breach of the terms of his employment contract – Perusal thereof – Effect of

DISMISSAL: Insolence – Whether the claimant had had difficulty working as part of a team in the company – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether he had come across as being pompous, derogatory and critical of the management of the company – Whether the misconduct had successfully been proven against him – Whether it had justified his dismissal

DISMISSAL: Insolence – Whether the claimant had undermined COW1’s decisions and instigated others to speak up against her – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether the misconduct had successfully been proven against him – Whether it had justified his dismissal

DISMISSAL: Insubordination – Whether the claimant, by the language he had used in the e-mail to the Secretary General and by his behaviour, had been disrespectful of his superior and the higher management of the company – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Claimant’s defence – Whether could be accepted – Whether he had displayed malicious intent by his actions – Whether misconduct proven by the company – Whether it had justified his dismissal

DISMISSAL: Insubordination – Whether the claimant’s use of language in his reply to the show cause letter had been insolent and insubordinate – What his reply had shown – Whether it had been acceptable of someone holding the position of CFO of a company – Factors to consider – Effect of

DISMISSAL: Performance – Unsatisfactory performance – Claimant failing to finalise the budget for FY2015 – Whether proven by the company – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – His defence – Whether could be accepted – His role and seniority in the company – What his responsibilities towards it had been – Whether he had discharged his duties properly – Whether the company’s actions towards him had been reasonable – Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)

INDUSTRIAL COURT: Remedies – Punishment – Whether the claimant’s punishment of dismissal had been proportionate under the circumstances – Factors to consider – Effect of