Dismissal : Misconduct - Forgery - Breach of company's procedures and terms of employment - Termination lacking material information - Breaches not pleaded neither stated in the company's witnesses testimony - Whether permissible - Company's failure to call material witness - Adverse inference against the company pursuant to s 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 whether proven

The company employed the claimant as a Warehouse Manager. The claimant was terminated with immediate effect on April 2014. The company averred that the claimant's conduct and behaviour had changed after his confirmation. The claimant came to the company's warehouse at odd hours in the morning or continued to stay late after work. The company was only aware of this situation when the claimant's wife complained about it. The claimant was given a verbal warning. The company further averred that it detected some stock discrepancies, where records indicated that stocks were available but the physical stock showed a shortage. A physical stock count was then initiated. The company discovered that the claimant had forged the signatures of other employees. The claimant had allegedly admitted forging the employees' signatures, among them being one Ms Mageswari a/p Subramaniyam (Mages). Subsequently, Mages lodged a Police Report regarding the forgery. The company also stated that the claimant whilst interviewing a new lorry driver, one En Zulfahmi, recommended a high salary, which breached the company's procedures and terms of employment. The company's stock count had also revealed missing products amounting to RM24,943.69. Consequently, the company issued a Letter of Demand to the claimant. The company also alleged the claimant breached its procedures when he personally made some deliveries. The company contended that it had given the claimant the opportunity to defend himself but he had unreasonably refused to meet them. The company therefore prayed that the claimant's claim be dismissed with costs. The claimant averred that without notice and without warning he was immediately terminated, there was no payment in lieu of notice, and the company only stated that he had committed the following three allegations: (a) falsified the signatures of company's employees (b) failed to follow the company's procedures to ship out products to its customers; and (c) mislead the company regarding the salary for a new recruit (Zulfahmi). This, he asserted was demonstrative of the company's intention to victimise him and also deny him the due legal process.