RICHARD PAUL YANAPRAKASAN v. SAFEGUARDS G4S SDN BHD

RICHARD PAUL YANAPRAKASAN v. SAFEGUARDS G4S SDN BHD
Industrial Court, Kuala Lumpur
Sarojini Kandasamy
Award No: 690 of 2017 [Case No: 4/4-30/16]
16 May 2017

Dismissal : Victimisation - Claimant dismissed by company for alleged misconduct following disciplinary proceedings - Whether company had victimised claimant - Whether conduct of disciplinary proceeding contrary to principles of natural justice - Whether claimant's employment terminated without just cause and excuse

Domestic Inquiry : Proceedings at inquiry - Claimant dismissed by company for alleged misconduct following disciplinary proceedings - Whether conduct of disciplinary proceeding contrary to principles of natural justice - Whether claimant's employment terminated without just cause and excuse

This was a dispute over the dismissal of the claimant by the defendant company ('company'). It was alleged that the claimant had breached the company's Security Standard Operating Procedures ('SOP') in failing to examine the CIT security canvas bags in the trolley before the trolley was pushed through door five ('the alleged misconduct'). Following the alleged misconduct, the company conducted disciplinary proceedings against the claimant, and during the domestic inquiry ('DI'), the company found that the alleged misconduct had been proven and dismissed the claimant. In this action, the claimant contended the company had victimised him; the conduct of the disciplinary proceeding was contrary to the principles of natural justice; and that the company had unlawfully terminated his employment without just cause and excuse.

Held (allowing the claimant's claim with compensation in lieu of reinstatement):

(1) Based on the evidence in this case, there were procedural infirmities during the DI as the fundamental rubrics of natural justice were not adhered to before and during the process of the DI. Hence, the DI was defective and improper and its findings were perverse. Accordingly, a prima facie case had not been established from the DI held by the company and the company had to prove its case de novo. (paras 39-40)

Sign up to view full cases Login