3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO. : 3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08 BETWEEN TAN YEOK WAH AND AYAMAS FOOD CORPORATION SDN. BHD. AWARD NO. : 165 OF 2013 Before Venue Date of Reference Dates of Mention : PUAN ANNA NG FUI CHOO - Chairman (Sitting Alone) : Industrial Court Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur : 20.2.2008 : 21.4.2008, 4.6.2008, 13.8.2008, 17.10.2008, 5.12.2008, 6.1.2009, 23.1.2009, 3.4.2009, 20.4.2009, 6.5.2009, 27.8.2009, 19.3.2010, 23.6.2010, 28.7.2010, 25.8.2010, 15.11.2010, 18.2.2011, 18.4.2011, 22.4.2011, 9.6.2011, 22.7.2011, 3.8.2011, 16.11.2011, 22.11.2011, 20.12.2011, 17.1.2012, 30.4.2012 : 10.9.2009, 11.12.2009, 6.4.2010, 9.8.2010, 10.8.2010, 19.4.2011, 24.5.2011, 13.7.2011, 24.8.2011, 7.9.2011, 1.11.2011, 2.11.2011, 7.12.2011, 13.6.2012, 16.7.2012, 8.8.2012, 7.9.2012 : 15.10.2012, 16.10.2012

Dates of Hearing

Written Submissions

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

Representation

: Mr. Vinod Kamalanathan From Messrs Vinod Kamalanathan & Associates Counsel for the Claimant Ms. Wan Sarimah Bte Wan Husain From Messrs Zainal Abidin & Co Counsel for the Company

Reference This is a reference made under section 20 (3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (the Act) arising out of the dismissal of Tan Yeok Wah (hereinafter referred to as the Claimant) by Ayamas Food Corporation Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as the Company) on 15 June 2006.

AWARD
[1] The Ministerial reference in this case required the Court to hear

and determine the Claimants complaint of dismissal by the Company on 15 June 2006. [2] The hearing of this case commenced on 10 September 2009 Mr. Goonting's contract as a Chairman

before learned Chairman Mr. Franklin Goonting and had continued thereafter on various dates. ended on 31 December 2011 so this case was transferred to this court by the learned President to facilitate the continuation of the trial. The third witness of the Company (COW3) was in the midst of his crossexamination when this case was heard before me. This court had the opportunity to hear his evidence and the last Company's witness before the Claimant and her witness gave evidence in the Claimant's case.

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

[3]

The Claimant was first employed by the Company as a general

clerk with effect from 17 August 1981. At the time of her dismissal, the Claimant held the position of Broiler Executive and her last drawn monthly salary was RM3,500.00. The Claimant confirmed that the nature of her duties as a Broiler Executive were inter alia the following:

(a)

attending to customers that have obtained the contract for disposal of chicken parts and to walk in customers who intended to purchase the chicken parts;

(b)

processing documentation for the disposal of the chicken parts; and

(c)

doing a market survey with regard to the disposal of chicken parts and producing it to the management.

Facts Leading to the Claimants Dismissal [4] On 24 May 2006, the Claimant received a suspension letter from

the Company alleging that she had received 'kick back' from several buyers of the Company. On that day itself, a meeting was held by the Company for the purpose of investigation into the alleged misconduct of the Claimant. The said meeting was attended by the Claimant whilst the Company was represented by the Senior General Manager, Group Human Resources and Security, Mr. Hishamudin Mon, the Vice President of Integrated Poultry and Manufacturing Mr. Alan Au and the General Manager of Internal Audit, Mr. Edmund Loong (COW2). The Claimant was suspended on full pay from 24 May 2006 to 6 June 2006.
3

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

[5]

After the 24 May 2006 meeting, the Claimant was given a letter

dated 30 May 2006 (pages 6 and 7 of the Company's Bundle of Documents (COB)) containing another allegation that she had received a Maybank cheque no. 641958 dated 28 April 2006 amounting to RM5,000.00 which was banked into her Maybank account number 512558110454. In the same letter, the Claimant was told to attend an inquiry on 6 June 2006 at 9.00am which was to be held at the headquarters of the Company at Kuala Lumpur. The Claimant attended the domestic inquiry (DI) where one Mr. Chew Kah Poh (COW3) was called as a witness of the Company. [6] The charges of misconduct preferred against the Claimant were

the following: (i) That you, while in the employment of the Company as Broiler Executive at Ayamas Corporation Sdn Bhd, Port Klang between the period of 1 January 1999 and May 2006, had accepted from one buyer name Mr. Chew Kah Poh monetary reward for dealings that you have with his Company on behalf of the Company whether you knew or ought to have known that such practices were improper, against the interest of the Company and in breach of Company's rules and regulations and policies thereby committing a serious act of misconduct. The details of the payments accepted are as follows:
7.4.2004 4.6.2004 1.7.2004 RM1,950.00 Maybank Account 512558110454 RM1,800.00 Maybank Account 512558110454 RM2,000.00 Maybank Account 512558110454
4

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

(ii)

That you, while in the employment of the Company as Broiler Executive at Ayamas Corporation Sdn Bhd, Port Klang between the period of 1 January 2006 and May 2006, had accepted from one buyer name Mr. Chew Kah Poh a further monetary reward for dealings that you have with his Company on behalf of the Company whether you knew or ought to have known that such practices were improper, against the interest of the Company and in breach of Company's rules, regulations and policies thereby committing a serious act of misconduct. The details of the payment accepted is as follows: Maybank Cheque No. 641958 dated 28 April 2006 in the amount of RM5,000.00.

[7]

In the Company's letter dated 14 June 2006 (page 33 of COB) the

Claimant was notified that her service was terminated with effect from 15 June 2006. The Domestic Inquiry (DI) [8] The DI proceeded on 6 June 2006 and after hearing the testimony

of three (3) Company's witnesses and after considering the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, the inquiry panel unanimously found the Claimant guilty of the charges of misconduct levelled against her (page 32 of COB). Having regard to the findings of the inquiry panel and the seriousness of the charges of misconduct of which the Claimant was found guilty of, the Company decided to dismiss the Claimant.

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

[9]

In the course of the hearing of this case, the former learned

Chairman presiding over this matter made a ruling that the charges preferred against the Claimant were not proper and held that the domestic inquiry conducted involving the Claimant was null and void. Hence, it was ordered that the parties were not to rely on the domestic inquiry proceedings against the Claimant. Consequently, the Company would have to prove de novo the charges against the Claimant before this Court. [10] The Company relied on the authority of Wong Yuen Hock v. Syarikat Hong Leong Assurance Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [1995] 3 CLJ 344 which followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Dreamland Corporation (M) Sdn Bhd v. Choong Chin Sooi & Industrial Court of Malaysia [1988] 1 CLJ 1 that a defective inquiry or failure to hold a domestic inquiry is not a fatality but only an irregularity curable by de novo proceedings before the Industrial Court. [11] In Wong Yuen Hock v. Syarikat Hong Leong Assurance Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal, supra, it was stated: It was not within the ambit of the reference for the Industrial
Court to determine whether Hong Leong ought to be punished for failing to hold a domestic inquiry. The Industrial Court was not competent to declare the dismissal void for failure to comply with the rule of natural justice. The very purpose of the inquiry before the Industrial Court was to give both parties to the dispute an opportunity to be heard irrespective of whether there was a need for the employer to hold a contractual or statutory inquiry. We were confident that the Industrial
6

Court as constituted at present was capable of arriving at fair

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

result by fair means on all matters referred to it. If therefore there had been a procedural breach on natural justice committed by the employer at the initial stage, there was no reason why it could not be cured at the re-hearing by the Industrial Court..

The Company's Case [12] The Company called four (4) witnesses to prove the charges of misconduct for which the Claimant was found guilty of i.e. that the Claimant had accepted from COW3 monetary rewards which were paid into the Claimant's account. It was not disputed that the Maybank account number 512558110454 had belonged to the Claimant. [13] During the trial, Ms. Chan Swee Kheng (COW1) confirmed that she had on 22 May 2006 prepared a report on allegations of misconduct involving the Claimant to the Senior General Manager, Group Human Resources and Security of the Company. A copy of the report is found at pages 3 and 4 of COB. COW1 confirmed that the report was prepared by her upon receiving the instruction from Ms. PP Foo (Ms Foo Peng Peng - COW4), who was personally informed of the Claimant's alleged misconduct by one customer known as Mr. Chew Kah Poh. [14] COW4 was the Managing Director of KFC Marketing Sdn Bhd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. Prior to that appointment in 2008, she was the Senior Vice President in Sales and Marketing Division of Ayamas Food Corporation Sdn Bhd in Port Klang. She stated in her witness statement that COW3 went to see her at her office in Kuala Lumpur on 15 May 2006. It was to express his disappointment
7

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

on his failure to secure the tender for purchase of offal meal with the Company. During the meeting, COW3 informed her about the monies which had been paid to the Claimant during the business transactions with the Company in order to maintain smooth sales' transactions as requested by the Claimant. The payments were mostly cash payments and only a few payments were made vide her bank account. [15] COW4 had asked COW3 to substantiate his complaint with supporting documents which he did. COW3 had returned to see COW4 with the documents on pages 10 to 12 of COB. Upon disclosure of the documents, COW4 contacted COW1 to look into the matter as she was the Sales Manager and at the material time, she was the Claimant's superior. The meeting with COW4 on 15 May 2006 was also confirmed by COW3 in his evidence. [16] Under cross-examination, COW4 said she had known COW3 and his late father for many years because of business dealings. COW3 was considered one of the big customers of the Company because waste collection was a specialised field. She said that in theory, the Claimant had to report everything to COW1 and to get approval from the top management according to set procedures. However, in the production of wastes, the quantity could only be determined at the end of the business day so the figures fluctuated. The top management would have fixed the pricing on the estimated quantity but the actual quantity could only be determined at the end of the business day. She claimed that the Claimant was entrusted with the job to decide on behalf of the Company who to sell the excess to.

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

[17] COW2 stated in his witness statement that he was summoned to attend the meeting held on 24 May 2006 together with Mr. Hishamudin Mon and Mr. Alan Au. He further testified that during the meeting, the Claimant had explained that the Maybank cheque for the sum of RM5,000.00 was given by COW3 to the Claimant for the purpose of the renewal of his insurance policy. However, when she was shown the copies of the deposit slips, the Claimant was alleged to have said that she had received and used up the monies. However, she said that she had never asked for the money from COW3. [18] COW3's evidence in chief was to the effect that: (a) the Claimant herself asked and/or requested for payment from COW3 to ensure smooth business transactions with the Company and also for assisting COW3 to introduce new and potential buyers to COW3; (b) the payments were either made in cash, telegraphic transfer or cheques; (c) he did not keep proper record on cash payments but there were three (3) deposit slips provided by COW3 as proof of payments made to the Claimant; (d) the details of the deposit slips are as particularised in paragraph 6 above; (e) the monies were paid into the Claimant's Maybank account as requested by the Claimant;
9

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

(f)

that every time there was a reduction in price, the amount of commission asked to be paid to the Claimant was calculated based on the margin of the reduced price multiplied by the tonnage of the goods collected by COW3;

(g)

the Maybank account no. 512558110454 was provided by the Claimant to COW3 via text message; and

(h)

the Claimant had called him on the telephone to bank in the money.

The Claimant's Case [19] The Claimant denied the Company's allegations based on these reasons:

(a) (b) (c)

The contracts were awarded by the Company itself. The disposal price was determined by the Company itself. The Claimant had no authority nor was she involved in the decision making of the above contracts and the disposal price.

(d)

It was the Company that decided to give the contract to COW3 and she had no authority to decide to whom the contracts were to be given to.

10

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

(e)

COW3 did not know how to write simple letters or filled up certain forms either to the Company or to other related authorities.

(f)

In those circumstances, the Claimant was instructed by her superior, Mr. Kevin Chang being the Deputy Manager of the Company to assist COW3 in respect of matters stated in paragraph (e) above.

(g)

The cheque for RM5,000.00 was given to the Claimant to assist COW3 with his insurance payment.

[20] On the excess stock, the Claimant said the new price was decided by Dr. Kooi and the price would be conveyed to her by Mr. Kevin Chang or COW1. The Claimant's role was to fill the forms for the customers so they could propose their reduced prices to be considered by Dr. Kooi and for his approval. Once the price was approved by him, the form would be sent to the Claimant and for the products and stocks to be processed, usually by Mr. Azami. The Claimant also denied that she had ever given her bank account number to COW3. She said COW3 was close to Mr. Azami who worked at the factory where the products and stocks were collected and Mr. Azami was also in charge of the Personnel Department. Her Maybank account was also used to credit her monthly salary. She stated she was never aware that monies had been banked into her account by COW3 or that she had received any commission of any sort from him. In cross-examination, she said that her brother used to deposit money to her Maybank account because she is single and lived with her mother and took care of her.
11

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

[21] The Claimant explained that the cheque on page 11 of COB was the payment for COW3's insurance cover while page 15 of COB was the official receipt issued by the insurance company i.e. Great Eastern Life Assurance (Malaysia) Berhad for the said payment. CLW2 was the Claimant's niece who testified that she had helped COW3 to renew his insurance. She said that her aunt i.e. the Claimant had called her some time at the end of April 2006 and had asked her to help COW3 to reinstate his insurance policy. She said she had told the Claimant that she could do so and that to re-instate the policy would cost him about RM5,000.00 since his yearly payment was RM2,293.00 with late payment charges and interest. She confirmed the RM5,000.00 payout made to the Claimant for the said insurance policy that had been received. The Function of the Court [22 ] In the Federal Court case of Milan Auto Sdn Bhd v. Wong Seh Yen [1995] 4 CLJ 449, it was authoritatively stated as follows:
As pointed out by the Court recently in Wong Yuen Hock v. Syarikat Hong Leong Assurance Sdn Bhd [1995] 2 MLJ 753, the function of the Industrial Court in dismissal cases on a reference under s. 20 is twofold, first, to determine whether the misconduct complained of by the employer has been established, and secondly, whether the proven misconduct constitutes just cause or excuse for the dismissal..

12

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

[23] On the duty of the court, in Goon Kwee Phoy v. J & P (M) Bhd [1981] 2 MLJ 129, his Lordship Raja Azlan Shah CJ Malaya (as his HRH then was) at page 136 expressed:
Where representations are made and are referred to the Industrial Court for enquiry, it is the duty of that court to determine whether the termination or dismissal is with or without just cause or excuse. If the employer chooses to give a reason for the action taken by him, the duty of the Industrial Court will be to enquire whether the excuse or reason has or has not been made out. If it finds as a fact that it has not been proved, then the inevitable conclusion must be the termination or dismissal was without just cause or excuse. The proper enquiry of the court is the reason advanced by it and that court or the High Court cannot go into another reason not relied on by the employer or find one for it..

Evaluation of Evidence [24] It is a principle of industrial jurisprudence that in a dismissal case, the employer must produce convincing and cogent evidence that the workman committed the offence or offences he is alleged to have committed for which he has been dismissed. The onus of proof lies on the Company and the standard that is required is on a balance of probabilities. [25] It was laid down in the case of Telekom Malaysia Kawasan Utara

v. Krishnan Kutty Sanguni Nair & Anor [2002] 3 CLJ 314 that the standard of proof is not beyond reasonable doubt in such cases of

13

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

misconduct which are related to dishonest acts.

At page 327 his

Lordship Abdul Hamid Mohamad JCA (as he then was) said:

Thus, we can see that the preponderant view is that the Industrial Court, when hearing a claim of unjust dismissal, even where the ground is one of dishonest act, including theft, is not required to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the employee has committed the offence, as in a criminal prosecution. On the other hand, we see that the courts and learned authors have used such terms as solid and sensible grounds, sufficient to measure up to a preponderance of the evidence, whether a case has been made out, on the balance of probabilities and evidence of probative value. In our view the passage quoted from Administrative Law by H.W.R. Wade & C.F. Forsyth offers the clearest statement on the standard of proof required, that is the civil standard based on the balance of probabilities, which is flexible, so that the degree of probability required is proportionate to the nature of gravity of the issue..

[26]

In the submission of learned counsel for the Claimant, he had

proposed and summarised the reasons for COW3's complaints against the Claimant of which were: (i) The Claimant had always assisted COW3 in getting the chicken parts at a reduced price. Therefore, once he had disposed the chicken parts to a third party at a higher price, he then shared the profits with the Claimant and that was her commission.
14

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

(ii)

The Claimant had assisted him in writing letters to Mr. Azami who worked at the factory where the products and stocks were collected, to obtain the stock at a reduced price and for this assistance, once he sold the stock and received the profit, he had paid her commission.

(iii) The Claimant had apparently given the tender of chicken products and stock to another company and since he could not get the tender, he had complained about her. (iv) He had bought some goods from the Company at a reduced price and he had supplied those goods to a company called Beram & Co. but they had failed to pay him for the said goods. COW3 lodged the complaint against the Claimant because he thought she was involved. [27] The Company is not required to prove the motives of COW3 for

complaining against the Claimant which had prompted the Company to probe into the alleged misconduct which subsequently led to her dismissal. The duty of this court is to enquire if the Company had made out the excuse or reason for the Claimant's dismissal as stated in the Federal Court case of Goon Kwee Phoy v. J & P (M) Bhd, supra. [28] It is not disputed that the Claimant was dismissed after the panel

of the Company's DI had found her guilty of the charges against her. In this court, the previous learned Chairman had ruled that the DI was null and void due to the defective charges preferred against the Claimant. It is now incumbent upon this court to peruse the evidence adduced in this hearing as to whether the misconduct has been proved by the Company
15

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

and if the dismissal of the Claimant was for a just cause or excuse. It must be emphasized that on the authority of Goon Kwee Phoy's case supra, her dismissal must be based on the reasons advanced by the Company and those were the two (2) charges of misconduct against her as alleged by the Company through COW3. [29] This court has read the notes taken in the proceedings and noted COW3 was a customer of the

that all the Company's witnesses were subjected to lengthy crossexamination, in particular COW3. Company and used to obtain chicken parts such as offal meals, chicken heads and chicken feet to feed the fish in his fish farm. He gave his testimony in court with the aid of a Chinese interpreter and he had spoken in the Hokkien dialect. However, there were many occasions when he had replied either in broken English or Bahasa Malaysia, as and when he felt comfortable. Aspersions were cast on him to discredit his evidence that he had little formal education so he could not have possibly written the deposit slips for the monies that were banked into the Claimant's account. He did clarify that he knows and writes the alphabet. From COW3's mannerism and conduct in court, the court finds that he was not as ignorant or illiterate as he was perceived to be. He was a businessman who knew how to get things done, in his own ways. [30] COW3 did not deny he was disappointed with the Company's

new administration when it decided on a tender basis for chicken parts and he had failed to secure the tender. It was for this reason that he had gone to see COW4 on 15 June 2006, a fact which COW4 admitted in her witness statement that Mr. Chew came to see me at my office in Kuala Lumpur to express his disappointment on his failure to secure the
16

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

tender for purchase of offal meal with Ayamas Food Corporation Sdn Bhd. It was also in that meeting that it was exposed that COW3 had allegedly been paying the Claimant for whatever favours she had done for him. It was alleged that he had been paying the Claimant for many years so the first charge against the Claimant was for the period 1 January 1999 and May 2006 which was over a period of more than seven (7) years. However, the details of the payments given were on 7 April 2004, 4 June 2004 and 1 July 2004 based on the deposit slips. It is clear that it was well over two (2) years after the monies were deposited into the account that COW3 decided to bring the matter up with the Company's management. It is even clearer to the court that he was disgruntled with the Company because he had failed to secure the tender. He agreed in cross-examination that he did not lodge a written complaint against the Claimant because he had no intention to complain against her. [31] Being a known customer of the Company which went back to his

late father's time, it appeared that COW3 was very familiar and generous with the Company staff and senior management. In his evidence in chief, he said that he used to give cash, sometimes cheques, to people who helped him. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had given oranges, hampers and lunch to the Company's staff during Chinese New Year. In the Claimant's witness statement, she claimed that COW3 had sent boxes of oranges to the staff and large hampers to Dr. Kooi and COW4 and other senior management officers. COW3 was also alleged to have given the staff lunch and taken some of the male staff and senior management for karaoke sessions.

17

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

[32]

The Company has to prove that the Claimant had received

monetary reward for dealings with COW3's company on behalf of the Company as stated in the first charge of which such practices were improper, against the interest of the Company and in breach of Company's rules, regulations and policies. In their witness statements and in court, both COW1 and COW2 referred to what they had related as witnesses in the DI. The reference to the DI notes was a futile exercise because the DI had been held to be invalid so that evidence does not carry any weight in this hearing. These witnesses had also referred to the documents in COB in their witness statements but did not give further evidence of their knowledge on the allegations against the Claimant. Neither did they provide any Company rules, regulations and policies which could tie down the Claimant or any other staff of any practices that were considered improper. The report prepared by COW1 on page 3 of COB contained an error on the date of the cheque which was stated 28 May 2006 when it should have been 28 April 2006. [33] The court is also in total agreement with the former learned The first charge was

Chairman that the charges were defective.

defective because the misconduct was alleged to have been committed over a span of seven (7) years and yet, the payments alleged to have been paid to the Claimant were over four (4) months in 2004. The oral complaint lodged by COW3 was in May 2006, a considerable lapse of time of more than two (2) years after the alleged payments were made. No reasons were proffered as to why he had chosen to remain silent but made the alleged payments regularly to the Claimant. This puts his credibility to test and the court has to be cautious in accepting his evidence because there was no other evidence that corroborated or
18

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

supported his evidence. The court finds that the only evidence against the Claimant were the deposits allegedly paid into her account and COW3's oral testimony in court. Since he was subjected to a lengthy and intense cross-examination, he was not consistent in his answers and gave conflicting replies, especially on the RM5,000.00 cheque and whether it was for the payment of his insurance. [34] COW3 had given various reasons why he had given the Claimant

money but the Company has failed to prove that it was within the powers of the Claimant to do favours for COW3. The procedure for disposing the excess offal set has already been explained earlier. The Claimant had testified that she hardly saw COW3 because her office was on the 2nd floor and the goods were collected by COW3 on the ground floor. She agreed under cross-examination that communications were mostly over the telephone and she had met customers including COW3, once a week or a fortnight. [35] It is obvious to this court that the investigations and actions taken the Claimant were hastily handled by the Company.

against

Considering the evidence of this case in its totality, the court finds that the Company has not proved the first charge against the Claimant. [36] On the second charge, the Claimant's explanation was consistent

from the time she was questioned by the Company on the RM5,000.00 Maybank cheque on 24 May 2006 until she testified in court. On the insurance, COW3 had agreed that page 15 of COB was the official receipt for his insurance cover. He also said he received the insurance cover although he denied receiving the official receipt. The second charge was related to the Maybank cheque which was dated 28 April
19

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

2006. The receipt issued by Great Eastern was dated 29 May 2006 for the amount of RM4,634.97 which was close to RM5,000.00. From the evidence of COW3, the Claimant and CLW2 the court is satisfied with the Claimant's explanation that the cheque payment for the amount of RM5,000.00 was for paying the insurance cover of COW3. [37] As in the first charge, the Claimant faced the second charge that

between the period of 1 January 2006 and May 2006 she had accepted a further monetary reward for dealings from COW3. There was no evidence adduced that the Claimant had received the monetary reward during that period of time for dealings that she had with COW3's Company on behalf of the Company. Having so found, the court rules that the second charge against the Claimant has not been proved either. In arriving at this decision, this court has taken into consideration section 30 (5) of the Act and acted with equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities and legal form. Findings and Remedy [38] Since the Company has failed to prove the misconduct alleged to

have been committed by the Claimant in both of the charges, it means that the ensuing dismissal of the Claimant was without just cause or excuse. The court opines that reinstatement would not be an appropriate remedy since the Claimant has been dismissed for more than six (6) years and it is not in the best interest of the Company or the Claimant to order as such. The Claimant said she had not been able to find a permanent job since her dismissal due to her age (50 on the date of dismissal) but she had held temporary jobs and Tupperware parties.
20

3(28)(3)(24)/4-329/08

The Company did not bring in any evidence of the Claimant's post dismissal earnings. [39] Having considered the above, the court hereby makes the

following orders:
Back wages @ RM3,500.00 (being the Claimant's last drawn pay) x 24 months Compensation in lieu of reinstatement @ RM3,500.00 x 24 (for each year of service) : RM84,000.00 : RM84,000.00

Total

--------------------: RM168,000.00 ============

[40] Accordingly, the Company is to pay the Claimant the total sum after deducting the necessary statutory deductions, if any, through her solicitors Messrs Vinod Kamalanathan & Associates within 30 days from the date of this award.

HANDED DOWN AND DATED THIS 18 DAY OF JANUARY 2013 ... ( ANNA NG FUI CHOO ) CHAIRMAN INDUSTRIAL COURT, MALAYSIA KUALA LUMPUR

21