EmploymentLaw>Judgments&Rulings>IndustrialCourt

Sundrama/lMuthusamyvIndahWaterKonsortiumSdnBhd
AwardNo.495of2015IndustrialCourt
DateofDecision:27April2015|Source:IndustrialCourt

INDUSTRIALCOURTOFMALAYSIA
CASENO.:12/41897/12
BETWEEN
SUNDRAMA/LMUTHUSAMY
AND
INDAHWATERKONSORTIUMSDN.BHD.
AWARDNO.:495OF2015
Before:Y.A.TUANGULAMMUHIADDEENBINABDULAZIZChairman(SittingAlone)
Venue:IndustrialCourtMalaysia,KualaLumpur
DateofReference:7.12.2012
DatesofMention:4.2.2013,4.3.2013,20.3.2013,22.4.2013,22.5.2013,13.6.2013,1.7.2013,1.8.2013,6.1.2014,18.3.2014,
28.11.2014,13.1.2015,29.1.2015
DatesofHearing:5.5.2014,6.5.2014,2.6.2014,3.6.2014,23.9.2014

Reference
Thisisareferencemadeundersection20(3)oftheIndustrialRelationsAct1967(theAct)arisingoutofthedismissalofSundrama/l
Muthusamy(hereinafterreferredtoas"theClaimant")byIndahWaterKonsortiumSdn.Bhd.(hereinafterreferredtoas"theCompany")on
5March2012.
AWARD
[1]ThisisareferencebytheHonourableMinisterofHumanResourcesmadeunderSection20(3)oftheIndustrialRelationsAct1967
regardingthedismissalofSundrama/lMuthusamy("theClaimant")byIndahWaterKonsortiumSdn.Bhd.('theCompany")on5March2012.
BriefFactsOfTheCase
[2]TheClaimantjoinedtheCompanyon5January2004asaSupervisor(Grade7)attheDesludgingDepartmentatSerembanBranch.The
Claimant'slastdrawnbasicsalarywasRM2,177.00permonth.
[3]On3January2012theCompanyissuedaShowCauseLettertotheClaimantwhichisreproducedasfollows

[4]TheClaimantrepliedtotheShowCauseLetterasfollows

[5]TheCompanybeingunsatisfiedwiththeClaimant'sexplanation,issuedaNoticeofDomesticInquiryandthechargeson18January
2012.DomesticInquirywasheldon8February2012whichwasrecordedontapeandthetranscriptenclosedatpages5494ofCOB.
[6]TheInquiryPanelfoundtheClaimantguiltyofallthethreecharges.
[7]TheCompanythenissuedadismissalletterdated5March2012asfollows

TheLaw

[8]AstothefunctionoftheCourtwhenhandlingareferenceunders.20oftheIndustrialRelationsAct1967("theAct"),theFederalCourtin
WongYuenHockv.SyarikatHongLongAssuranceSdnBhdandAnotherAppeal[1995]3CLJ344atpage352enunciated
"Ontheauthorities,wewereoftheviewthatthemainandonlyfunctionoftheIndustrialCourtindealingwiththereferenceunders.20of
theAct(unlessotherwiselawfullyprovidedbythetermsofthereference),istodeterminewhetherthemisconductorirregularities
complainedofbythemanagementasthegroundsofdismissalwereinfactcommittedbytheworkman,andifso,whethersuchgrounds
constitutejustcauseorexcuseforthedismissal.".
[9]ThesameprinciplewasfollowedbytheFederalCourtinMilanAutoSdnBhdv.WongSehYen[1995]4CLJ449inrelationtothetwo
foldfunctionoftheCourt.
[10]Fromtheaforesaidlegalproposition,theissuestobedeterminedbytheCourtare:
(i)whetherthemisconductcomplainedofbytheCompanywasinfactcommittedbytheClaimanti.e.,whethertheClaimantisguiltyof
theallegedmisconductand
(ii)ifso,whethertheprovenmisconductconstitutesjustcauseorexcuseforthebanktodismisstheClaimanti.e.,whetherdismissalis
theappropriatepunishment.
[11]Thelearnedauthor,CPMillsinIndustrialDisputeLawsInMalaysia(2ndedn.)atpage78said
"Unlessthereisclearevidencetosupportthechargeofmisconduct,theemployer'sdecisionagainsttheworkmanwillnotbe
upheldbytheCourt.Meresuspicionisnotenough.Evenwheretherewerereasonablegroundsbeforetheemployerforconcludingthat
theworkmanwasguiltyofthemisconductallegedagainsthim,butintheproceedingsbeforetheCourttheevidencedoesnot
permitanyfirmconclusionthattheworkmandidcommittheactsinquestion,thedismissalwillnotbesustained.
[EmphasisAdded]
[12]Ontheauthoritiescited,itisclearthattheonusisonthebankonabalanceofprobabilitiestoproducecogentandconvincingevidence
toprovethattheClaimantcommittedtheallegedmisconduct.
EvaluationAndDecision
[13]TheClaimantwereallegedtohavecommittedthefollowing3charges,i.e.inessence
(i)madeovertimeclaimsforSeptember2011,whichwasfalse
(ii)mademealallowanceclaimsforSeptember2011whichwerefalsebyshowingdistancetravelledmorethantheactualdistance
(iii)failedtoreplytotheShowCauseLetterasrequired,thoughgivenreasonabletimeperiodtodoso,i.e.7daystoreplybuttook
additional3dayswithoutseekinganextension.
[14]Asregardthefirstcharge,thefalseovertimeclaimcanbefoundatpage114ofCOB.MohdIskandarDzulkarnain("COW1")testified
thaton7September2011theClaimanthadclaimed2.33hoursforovertime.However,fromthecomputerprintout(pages115124ofCOB)
oftheIndustrialandFinancialSystem("IFS")indicatesthattherewerenorecordofanyactivitiesdonebytheClaimant.Alltherecordingsof
theIFSwereenteredbytheClaimanthimself.BasedontheIFSitisclearthattheClaimanthadmadethefollowingovertimeclaimsforthe
monthofSeptember
(i)on7September20115.10pmto7.30pmfor2.33hourstodoIFSworks.ButasperIFSworks,"EnteredDate"atpages119and120
ofCOBpreparedbytheClaimant,therewasnoIFSworkdoneon7September2011
(ii)on8September2011,claimsovertimefrom5.10pmto7.30pmfor2.33hourstodoIFSwork.HoweverasperIFS,"EnteredDate"at
pages119and120ofCOB,preparedbyClaimant,therewasnoIFSworkdoneon8September2011
(iii)on15and21September2011,Claimantclaimedtohaveworkedovertime2.33hoursand1.67hourstodoIFSwork.Butatpages
115ofCOB,"EnteredDate",thereisnoIFSworkdoneonthesaidtwodatesatall
(iv)on28September2011,Claimantclaimedtohaveworkedovertimeof2.5hourstodoIFSworkbutlookingatpages117118of
COB,hedidIFSworkonlyduringnormalworkinghoursandnoovertimedoneonthestateddate.
[15]COW1furthertenderedthesummaryoftheClaimant'sattendance(page126ofCOB)forthemonthofSeptember2011.The1st
columnistheClaimant'sOvertimeClaim,2ndcolumn"thetimethattheofficewereclosedbythelastperson"andthesecondlastcolumnis
"therecordingoftheADCsystem"i.e.asystemthatrecordstheexitandentertheoffice.ThelastcolumnisthetimetheClaimantexitedthe
office.
[16]BasedonthesummaryandcomparingtheClaimant'sovertimeclaimwiththelastrecordingoftheexitbytheClaimantthroughtheADC
systemclearlyshowsthattheClaimanthadmadeseveralovertimeclaimafterhisexittimeonseveraldatesinSeptember.
[17]Theabovearewrittenrecordswhichspeaksforitself.ItclearlyshowsthattheClaimanthadmadethefalseovertimeclaimsforthe
monthofSeptember2011.
[18]TheClaimantinhisevidencemerelydeniedtherecordsandstatesthatheactuallydidtheovertime.Hetestifiedasfollows

Q50:Refertopage114ofCOBon7.9.2011youclaimovertimefrom5.107.30pm2.33hourspurpose:IFSworkandcollectCSR
enquiry,andnowlookatpages115124andinparticularatpage119,thereisnoworkdonebetween5.107.30pm,thereforeyour
claimisfalse?
A:IdidIFRworkbutnorecordatpage119.
Q51:Refertopage114ofCOB,8.9.2011overtimeclaimfrom5.10pm7.30pmIFSwork.Refertopage115,thereisnoentrydate
for8.9.2011?
A:IdidIFSworkbutnoentrydate.Iamnotverysure.
Q52:Why7.9.2011and8.9.2011entrymissing?
A:Thesystemisnotperfectsystem.Allsupervisorfacingthisproblem.
Q57:Page114ofCOB15.9.2011andIFSReportEnteredDateatthelastcolumnatpage115,4thlineis9.8.2011andthenextison
26.9.2011.Isthereanyworkdoneon15.9.2011?
A:Idotheworkbutthereisnoentereddate,i.e.itisnotrecordedbecausemaybesomebodymanipulate.
[19]BasedontheaboveClaimant'sevidence,itisobvioustotheCourtthattheClaimant'sreplytothe1stchargeisabaredenialwithoutany
supportingevidence.HeallegedthathedidtheIFSworkbutitwasnotenteredintothesystembecausethesystemisnotaperfectsystem
andlatercontendsthatsomebodymighthasmanipulatedthesystem.However,theClaimantfailedtoadduceanyevidencetotheeffectand
furtherthesecontentionoftheClaimantwasnotpleaded.Itisclearlyanafterthought.
[20]Fortheabovereason,thisCourtfindstheClaimantguiltyofthefirstcharge.
SecondCharge
[21]TheClaimantisallegedtohavemakefalsemealallowanceforSeptember2011.On10September2011,19September2011,26
September2011and28September2011,theClaimantclaimedRM12.00eachwhenundertheCompany'srules,hedidnotqualifyformeal
allowance.AccordingtotheCompanyrules,anemployeemusttravelinexcessof50kmonewayandmorethan4hoursperformingdutyto
qualifyformealallowance.TheClaimantwasallegedtofalselyrecordedmileagetravelledinexcessof100kmtoqualifyforthesaid
allowance.
[22]COW1testifiedontheClaimant'smileageandmealallowanceclaimwhichwerefalseasfollows
(i)forexamplepage112,10September2011heclaimedtravellingfromReportingCentre(RC)TasikJayatoPadangKotaandclaimed
102km(returntrip)andRM12.00mealallowancebuttheactualdistanceis40kmonewayand80kmreturntrip.Thereforethemileage
andmealallowancearefalse
(ii)page112,19September2011heclaimedtravelfromSerembanUnitOfficetoRRKota,116kmreturnandRM12.00mealallowance
whereastheactualdistanceis40kmonewayand80kmreturn.Thereforehismileageandmealallowanceclaimsarefalse
Further,onpage105,duringtheinvestigations,ClaimantadmittedthathetravelledfurtherawaytowardsTampinformeals(notforduty)
thusexceeding50kmandthustoqualifyformealallowance
(iii)page112,21September2011heclaimedtravelfromSerembanofficetoRRKota116km.return,andRM12.00mealallowance
whereastheactualdistanceis40kmonewayand80kmreturn
However,duringhisinvestigationsheadmittedthathedeliberatelytravelledfurtherinexcessof50kmtohavemealsandtoqualifyfor
mealallowance
(iv)similarlyatpage113,26and28September2011whereheclaimed102kmeachtripandmealallowance,arealsoequallyfalse.
[23]COW3,EncikMunawir,theClaimant'simmediatesuperioragreedthatheendorsedtheClaimant'sclaimsatpages111to113ofCOBin
trustandgoodfaithashedidnotsuspectanythingatthatpointoftime.Heonlyfoundseriousirregularitiesduringtheinvestigationsonor
about10October2011ontheClaimant'smonthlyclaimsforSeptember2011.Theinvestigationreportisatpages105to107ofCOB.COW
3wereoftheviewthattheclaimswere"wrongfulandhighlyirregular".
[24]TheClaimantinhisevidenceadmittedthatheknewthatonlywhenhetravelledadistanceabove50km(oneway)or100km(return),he
canclaimmealallowance.AttheDomesticInquiryhestates
"Onlywhenmydistanceisabove50kmthatIclaimbutitisuptotheCompany'sprerogativetoapproveorotherwise.IfIcan'tclaimthen
Islashoutthatdate.".
[25]IntheInvestigationReportandinterviewwiththeClaimant(pages105to107ofCOB)underthecaption"JawapandariSundram",
Claimantstates
"Untukmakantengahhari,sayapergikeluarkearahTampinmenyebabkanjumlahmileagemenjadilebihdaripada50km(pergibalik
lebih100km)daninimelayakanmembuattuntutanelaunmakantengahhari.".

[26]TheaboveevidenceisclearthattheClaimanthadtravelledfurtherawaytoTampintohavehislunchandhadclaimedformeal
allowancealthoughthetravelwasnotforofficialdutiesbuttohavelunch.InthisregardtheClaimantduringthecrossexaminationtestifiedas
follows
Q38:Formealallowance,didyoutravelfurtherawaytoTampintoincreaseyourmileagetomakeupto50km?
A:DependsonmyHOSimmediatesuperiorapproval.
Q39:CanyoushowanyprooftoshowyourHOSapproval?
A:That'swhyhesignedtheMealAllowanceclaim.
Q40:YourecalltheevidenceofHOS.Hetrustedyou.Onlyaftertheinvestigationthetruthcameout?
A:MyHOSknowsbetterofkmanddistanceandthelocationonework.Andthat'swhyhesignedtheclaim.
Q49:HowwouldyouexplainthatyouwentfurthertoTampintoclaimfortheMealAllowance?
A:HOSisawareofthis.
[27]ClaimantisattemptingtojustifytheclaimbystatingthathisHOS(COW3)hasapprovedhismealallowance,thustheclaimisjustified.
COW3hasearliertestifiedthatheapprovedtheclaimbasedontrustandgoodfaith.ClaimanthasworkedwiththeCompanyformorethan
9yearsandisfullyawareofhisentitlementformealallowanceisonlyforofficialdistanceof50kmand4hoursworkingonsite.COW3
furtherstatesthattheClaimantcangoanywheretoeatduringhislunchtimebutitispersonalandnonofficial.Thus,hecannotclaimthe
mileagefornonofficialtrip.
[28]Basedontheabovereasons,theCourtfindtheClaimantguiltyofthesecondcharge.
ThirdCharge.
[29]TheClaimantischargedforhisfailuretoreplytotheShowCauseLetterwithinthe7daysbuttookadditional3dayswithoutseekingan
extension.
[30]DuringtheDomesticInquiry,afterthechargewasreadtohim,theClaimantadmittedthathewaslatetoreplyanditwashisfault.The
PanelofInquirythenrecordeditasapleaofguiltybytheClaimantofthethirdcharge.Claimanthasalsofailedtoseekanyextensionoftime
toreply.
[31]ItisnotdisputedthattheClaimanthadnotrepliedtotheShowCauseLetterwithinthe7daystimetodosobuttookadditional3days
withoutseekinganextensionfromthemanagement.TheClaimantexplainedthathewasbusywiththestaffappraisalandhadinformedhis
superiortoprovidefurthertimetoreply.HoweverCOW3hasdeniedthattheClaimanthasrequestedforanextensionoftimefromhim.
[32]TheCourtfindtheClaimantguiltyofthirdcharge.
WhetherDismissalWasTheAppropriatePunishment
[33]TheClaimanthadovertheyearsbeenissuedWarningLettersandSternWarningLettersbecauseofhismisconduct.Thelettersareset
outasfollows
(i)WarningLetterdated9March2010.
(ii)WarningLetterdated23September2009.
(iii)SternWarningLetterdated19November2008.
(iv)WarningLetterdated24October2007.
(v)SternWarningLetterdated2October2007.
(vi)ReminderLetterdated4July2007.
(vii)WarningLetterdated11January2007.
(viii)Reminderletterdated25September2006.
(ix)LetterofComplaintfromIWKEmployeeUniondated12February2010.
(x)PoliceReportonClaimantbyDr.RajindeerSinghdated22November2006.
(xi)PoliceReportonClaimantbyMunawirBinMohamedIWKemployeedated15February2012.
(xii)PoliceReportonClaimantbyMunawirBinMohameddated10January2012.
[34]Alltheabovepastmisconducts,punishments,warningsandpolicereportsareexhibitedfrompages1to53ofCOB.
[35]InthecaseofKamalaLoshaneeAmbalavanarv.JaffneseCooperativeSociety[1998]1LNS339,NikHashimJheldasfollows

"...Thepreviouswarningscouldnotbeconsideredas'spent',eventhoughthefinalwarningwasissuedsometwelve(12)yearspriorto
theincident.SincethefinalwarningwasbreachedbytheApplicant'smisconduct,theRespondentsocietycouldnotbeexpectedto
overlookthepastbadrecordoftheApplicantandtocontinueitselftotheparticularincidentofthiscase.ThusthelearnedChairmanof
theIndustrialCourtwasrighttotakethepastmisconductasarelevantconsiderationforthepurposeofdeterminingthe
appropriatepunishmentforthesubsequentmisconduct.".
[EmphasisAdded]
[36]InthecaseofSouthernBankBhdv.AzmiAli[2003]1ILR614,theIndustrialCourtreferredtotheLawofDismissalbySuranjan
Chakraverti6thedn.atpage617wherethelearnedauthorstated
"ThattheCourtinMaduraetc,Devasthanamv.SundaramAnnaviandothers,expressed
Nodoubtwhenanoffencehasbeencondonedordealtwithandtheoffenderretainedinservice,itisnotopentotheemployerto
subsequentlydismisshimforthesameoffence,butiftheservantoffendsagain,itisperfectlyjustifiablefortheemployerto
considertheprioroffencesindetermininginwhatmannerheshouldbedealtwithforthesubsequentoffences.".
[EmphasisAdded]
[37]ThedishonestactoftheClaimantinsubmittingthefalsemileageclaimandovertimeclaimhasbreachedthefiduciaryrelationshipof
trustbetweentheCompanyandtheClaimant.
[38]B.R.GhaiyeinhisbookonMisconductInEmploymentatpages650and651hadthefollowingtosayontherelationshipbetweenan
employerandanemployee
"Therelationbetweenanemployerandanemployeeisoffiduciarycharacter.Theword"fiduciary"meansbelongingtotrustor
trusteeship.Itmeansthatwheneveranemployerengagesaworkerheputstrustthattheworkerwillfaithfullydischargetheserviceand
protectandfurthertheinterestoftheemployer.Afiduciaryrelationshipexistsbetweenemployerandemployed(a)whenevertheformer
entruststhelatterwithproperty,tangibleorintangible,e.g.,confidentialinformationandreliesupontheothertodealwithsuchproperty
forthebenefitoftheemployer,orforpurposesauthorizedbyhim,andnototherwise,(b)whenevertheemployerentruststheemployee
withatasktobeperformed,e.g.,thenegotiationofacontract,andreliesontheservantoragenttoprocurethebesttermsavailable.If
theemployeedoesanactwhichisinconsistentwiththefiduciaryrelationship,thenthatwillbeanactofbadfaithforwhichhisservices
canbeterminated.Thesaidobligationisanimpliedobligation,i.e.anobligationattachedtoeverycontractofserviceevenwhen
thereisnoexpressmentioninthecontract.Theobligationtoservehismasterwithgoodfaithandfidelityarisesoutof
necessaryimplicationwhichisdeemedtobeengraftedoneachandeverycontractofservice.Thisimpliedconditionis
recognizedonaccountofrealizationoftheneedoffullconfidencebetweentheemployeeandtheemployerandthisimpliedcondition
continuesevenafteranemployeehaslefttheservice.Ifanemployeecontinuesinservice,thenoneoftheobviousremediesforbreach
offaithistodismisshim.".
[EmphasisAdded]
[39]InthelightofwhattheClaimantdid,theCompanycouldnolongerplaceitstrustandconfidenceintheClaimant.Thetrustand
confidencethattheCompanyhadintheClaimanthaddiminishedbyvirtueofhismisconduct.Whathedidinsubmittingthefalsemileageand
overtimeclaimisanactofbadfaithwhichisinconsistentwithhisfiduciaryrelationshipwithhisemployer.TheCourtisoftheviewthatunder
thecircumstancesandaftertakingtheClaimant'spastmisconductintoaccount,thepunishmentaccordedtotheClaimantisnotundulyharsh
andisjustified.
Conclusion
[40]Goingbyequityandgoodconscienceandthesubstantialmeritsofthecase,thisCourtholdsthattheCompanyhadjustcauseor
excusetodismisstheClaimant.TheCompanyhadadducedcogentandconvincingevidencetoprove,onabalanceofprobabilities,theguilt
oftheClaimantintheallegedmisconduct.ThereisthereforenoreasonforthisCourttointerfereinandoverturnthedecisionoftheCompany
indismissingtheClaimant.
[41]Accordingly,theclaimoftheClaimantisherebydismissed.
HANDEDDOWNANDDATEDTHIS27DAYOFAPRIL2015
...
GULAMMUHIADDEENBINABDULAZIZ
CHAIRMAN
INDUSTRIALCOURT,MALAYSIA
KUALALUMPUR
Mr.V.Kanagaratnam,FromMalaysianTradesUnionCongress(MTUC),RepresentativefortheClaimant
Mr.T.M.Varughese,FromMessrsT.M.Varughese&CoCounselfortheCompany

Notice:ThePublishersofMLTICacknowledgethepermissiongrantedbytherelevantofficial/originalsourceforthereproductionoftheabove/attached
materials.Youshallnotreproducetheabove/attachedmaterialsinwholeorinpartwithoutthepriorwrittenconsentofthePublishersand/ortheoriginal/official
source.NeitherthePublishersnortheofficial/originalsourcewillbeliableforanyloss,injury,claim,liability,ordamagecauseddirectly,indirectlyorincidentally
toerrorsinoromissionsfromtheabove/attachedmaterials.ThePublishersandtheofficial/originalsourcealsodisclaimandexcludeallliabilitiesinrespectof
anythingdoneoromittedtobedoneinrelianceuponthewholeoranypartoftheabove/attachedmaterials.Theaccessto,andtheuseof,MLTICand
contentshereinaresubjecttotheTermsofUse(/notices.aspx).