Absence and Employer Duty to Investigate Absence

ab

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

486 [2004] 2 ILRIndustrial Law Reports

2004

PENANG PARKROYAL HOTEL

v.

NORZAIDI SABRI

INDUSTRIAL COURT, PULAU PINANGSYED AHMAD RADZI SYED OMAR

AWARD NO. 525 OF 2004 [CASE NO: 7(9)/4-987/00]12 MAY 2004

DISMISSAL: Absenteeism - Absent without leave or reasonable excuse- Whether duty of employer to take reasonable steps to inquire intobackground facts causing employees absence - Whether claimant wasabsent - Whether absence was without prior leave of company - Whetherabsence was without reasonable excuse - Whether claimant failed toinform company of absence - Claimants record of service showing notendency to be habitual absentee - Whether ought to be taken into account- Whether just dismissalDOMESTIC INQUIRY: Procedural impropriety - Rules of natural justiceand basic fundamental human rights - Claimant not allowed to see, hearand cross-examine witnesses - Claimant not given full opportunity todefend himself - Whether fatal to companys caseThe claimant, a supervisor in the food and beverage department of the company,was dismissed from services for being absent continuously for a period ofseveral days. The company submitted that following the claimants absence, ashow cause letter was issued to the claimant that was ensued by a domesticinquiry where the claimant was found guilty of the charge: (i) of being absentfrom work without prior leave or any reasonable excuse; and (ii) for failingto inform or attempting to inform the company of the absence.

The claimant admitted that he was absent from work. He however explainedthat during the time of his absence, he was suffering from an illness and soughtmedical aid from a bomoh (hereinafter traditional healer). He attributed hisfailure to inform the company of his absence was because of his inability tomove due to the illness. Thereafter, the claimant had attempted to notify thecompany of his need to obtain emergency leave through his wife and sister.

Held [for the claimant]:[1] Following CK Lee & Associates v. Goh Shaw Yuh, it is a reciprocal

duty of an employer to take reasonable steps to investigate and inquireinto the background facts causing the employees absence, as muchas it is the duty of the employee to take reasonable steps to informthe employer of the situation giving rise to the absence. (p. 493 g)

ab

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

[2004] 2 ILR 487Penang Parkroyal Hotel v. Norzaidi Sabri

Syed Ahmad Radzi Syed Omar

[2] The burden of prove was on the company to prove four ingredientsas derived from the charge; i.e. (i) that the claimant was absent forthe said period; (ii) the absence was without prior leave of thecompany; (iii) the absence was without reasonable excuse; and (iv)that the claimant had failed to inform the company of his absence.(p. 494 f-h)

[2a] It was beyond dispute that the claimant was absent for a certainperiod. However, for the first ingredient, the company had includedthe claimants off-days of four days in the claimants alleged periodof absence. Further the show cause letter was also not consistent withthe charge. Thus, there were some irregularities to the first ingredient.(p. 494 h-i)

[2b] For the second ingredient, it was satisfactorily shown that no approvalwas obtained by the claimant prior to his absence. Only the claimantswife called the office to inform of the claimants illness. (p. 495 a-b)

[2c] For the third ingredient, it was clear that the claimants health problemstarted during the time of his absence. This was apparent since theclaimant had applied for advance salary for his treatment. The claimantalso made a leave application during the time of his illness but wasrejected by the company. Furthermore, the claimant had met with acompanys witness and the companys former human resourcesmanager and explained that the sickness could not be cured by westernmedicine. In view of these facts, the claimant had a good reason forhis absence. (p. 495 c-g)

[2d] The fourth ingredient was not proved by the company. From theevidence, the company was aware of the claimants health condition.The claimants wife and sister had called the company to inform ofthe claimants illness. Although the traditional healer was not able toprovide any medical certificate proving the claimants illness, however,he still came to court to testify as to his condition. That was goodenough evidence to substantiate the claimants sickness. (p. 495 h-i)

[3] The claimants previous record was taken into account to show thathe not only did not have a tendency to be a habitual absentee, butwas given a certificate of full attendance in the previous year. Theclaimant, admittedly by the company, had an unblemished record ofservice. (p. 496 c)

[4] The domestic inquiry held was not properly conducted. The claimantwas not allowed to see, hear and cross-examine witnesses. Theclaimant was also not given full opportunity to defend himself.

ab

c

d

e

f

g

h

i


2004

However, despite the irregularities of the domestic inquiry, the casewas not fatal. The Industrial Court is the proper forum to adjust onthe issue whether the claimants dismissal was with just cause orexcuse. (p. 496 f-g)

[5] The company had not proved its case on a balance of probabilities.What it should have done was to visit the claimant to determine hiscondition and to give him moral support. The dismissal was thereforewithout just cause or excuse. (p. 497 b-d)

[Unjust dismissal. Reinstatement not ordered. Backwages andcompensation in lieu of reinstatement awarded to claimant subject to 20%deduction for post dismissal earnings.]Award(s) referred to:CK Lee & Associates v. Goh Shaw Yuh [2002] 3 ILR 645 (Award No. 688 of 2002)Langkasuka Resort v. Mariappan Arumokan [2002] 3 ILR 1048 (Award No. 820 of 2002)Case(s) referred to:Dr. James Alfred, Sabah v. Koperasi Serbaguna Sanyo, Sabah and Anor [2001]

3 CLJ 541Goon Kwee Phoy v. J & P Coats (M) Bhd [1981] 2 MLJ 129Lvnock v. Cereal Packaging Ltd (1988) 510, [1988] ICR 670Milan Auto Sdn Bhd v. Wong Seh Yen [1995] 4 CLJ 449Wong Yuen Hock v. Syarikat Hong Leong Assurance Sdn Bhd & Anor Appeal [1995]

3 CLJ 344

For the claimant - Pravin Kaur Jessy; M/s Navinder Kaur JessyFor the company - S Sankar; M/s R Sivagnanan & Assocs

AWARD(NO. 525 OF 2004)

The dispute here is as a result of the dismissal of Norzaidi Sabri (the claimant)By Penang Parkroyal Hotel (the company).Facts of The CaseThe company dismissed the claimant for being absent continuously for a periodfrom 6 March 1999 to 7 March 1999 and 15 March 1999 to 27 March 1999without prior leave or reasonable excuse. The claimant had also failed to informor attempt to inform the company of his absence. Following the claimantsabsence a show cause letter was issued to the claimant. A Domestic Inquirywas convened on 9 April 1999. Two charges were preferred against theclaimant. The Inquiry Panel found the claimant guilty of the second charge.

The claimants excuse for his absence was due to his illness. The claimantsuffered serious illness during the period of his absence. The claimant tried

ab

c

d

e

f

g

h

i



taking medication from a few doctors but without success, as the pain in hisbody was still severe. The claimant then changed to traditional medicine whichsaw some improvement to his sickness. During the period of the claimantundergoing traditional medication he could not get sick leave as the traditionalhealer is not a medical doctor. During that period the claimant applied foremergency leave and called the company to inform of his condition. Theclaimant averred that he did not absent himself without reason or withoutinforming the company of his sickness.

The Evidence/Submissions

The Companys caseThe company dismissed the claimant after due inquiry. A Notice of Inquiryhad been issued to the claimant and requested the claimant to answer to 2charges set out therein, inter alia:

1. That you have obtained excessive medical leave from various clinics for atotal of 22 days from January 1999 until 31 March 1999. Out of the 22medical certificates submitted by you, 21 medical certificates were from nonpanel clinics and only 1 was from our panel clinic. These excessive medicalleave indicates that you are medically unfit to discharge your dutiesadequately.

2. You have continuously been absent from work from 6 March 1999 to7 March 1999, 15 March 1999 to 27 March 1999 without prior leave or anyreasonable excuse. You have failed to inform or attempt to inform youremployer of your absence. You have therefore, breached your contract ofemployment by such a major misconduct.

The Domestic Inquiry was duly convened on 9 April 1999.

The claimant as a supervisor in the food and beverage department of the hotelwas vested with the responsibility of assisting the restaurant manager inensuring the smooth running of the outlet and efficient delivery of service andto supervise the team and maintain discipline, safety, attendance and groomingstandard, resolving staff grievances as well as identifying the requirements andconduct formal training and on the job training to the staff and to provide themwith guidance and appraisal on their performance.

He therefore carries a higher level of responsibility as it is a function whichhas to be regularly attended to and which requires its incumbent to be diligentlyeffective in its performance particularly where it is an area which deals directlywith guests of the hotel. This is material factor to be considered in this casein terms of judging the claimants conduct.The claimant was absent from work in March 1999 for a continuous periodof time from 15 March 1999 to 27 March 1999.

ab

c

d

e

f

g

h

i


2004

Hence the evidence will show that the claimant had failed in his duties inmaterial respects due to his prolonged absence without reasonable excuse, fromthe employment of the hotel.

The circumstances had left the Hotel with no alternative other than to dismissthe claimant for his serious misconduct after due inquiry and after the claimanthad every opportunity to explain himself through a show cause exercise.

The evidence will demonstrate that the claimant does not really have a bonafide explanation for a defence of this allegation and the explanation he hadadvanced is void of any documentary proof that the claimant was indeedsuffering from an illness (if any) and that the claimant had indeed obtainedtraditional treatment (if any) as a cure to his illness during the period of hisabsence.

A reasonable standard of proof must be adopted, whereby due considerationand weightage must be given to the fact that in practical and realistic terms,the onus is on the claimant to proof that he was indeed suffering from anillness (if any) and that the claimant had indeed obtained traditional treatment(if any) as a cure to his illness during the period of his absence.The claimant admitted that he was absent from work in March 1999 for acontinuous period of time from 15 March 1999 to 27 March 1999.

The claimant contended that from 15 March 1999 to 27 March 1999 he wassuffering from an illness (traditional) and had sought medical aid from a Bomoh.The claimant did not go on further to explain and elaborate the nature of hisillness which has even mystified doctors. He referred to his illness as sakittradisional. Clearly the explanation advanced lacks even the most modestexpectations in terms of particulars.

The claimant did not produce any documentary evidence to prove that he wasindeed suffering from an illness. In addition the claimant did not produce theBomoh as his witness to prove that he had undergone traditional treatment tocure the said illness let alone to explain the nature of his illness.

COW3 testified that the claimants wife called the hotel on 20 March 1999and informed him that the claimant will be on medical leave.

The claimant testified that his sister (CLW2) called the hotel on 20 March 1999and 29 March 1999 to inform the hotel through COW3 of the claimants needto obtain emergency leave. The claimants sister even wrote a letter dated2 April 1999 to Jimmy Lee (Human Resources Manager) explaining the same.The said letter is exhibited in COB at p. 31.

COW3 testified that he did not receive any call from the claimant either fromthe claimants sister or wife on 29 March 1999.

ab

c

d

e

f

g

h

i



The claimant at the domestic inquiry only stated that his illness is somethinghe referred to as Penyakit Dalaman. However during the proceedings hereinhe purported to elaborate further by saying the following:

Penyakit tidak khusus kepada mana-mana bahagian. la menangkap dari atas bahu,belakang ke bawah pinggang. Akibatnya badan terganggu, rasa lemah, tidakupaya bergerak, berdiri dan kadang-kala tekanan dalaman, rasa dicucuk ke semuaanggota badan saya. Akibatnya saya lemah sangat, emosi saya terganggu.

This explanation was vague and unclear and does little to explain away themisconduct of absence.

The claimant in his testimony attributes his failure to inform the hotel of hisabsence because he was unable to move. Therefore the claimant had attemptedto notify the hotel of his need to obtain emergency leave through his wife orhis sister.

The claimants sister, Norlaili Sabri (CLW2) testified that she had called thehotel twice during the period between 15 March 1999 to 19 March 1999 and20 March 1999 to 27 March 1999 to notify the hotel vide Raj (COW3) ofthe claimants need to obtain emergency leave.

Further during cross examination she revealed that for the period between15 March 1999 to 19 March 1999 the call was made on 20 March 1999.Then for the period between 20 March 1999 to 27 March 1999 the call wasmade on 29 March 1999.

In addition CLW2 during re-examination testified that the call made on20 March 1999 was to cover the leave on 15, 16, 19 and 20 March 1999only and not the subsequent days. Therefore it is submitted that the first callwas made after the claimant had been away from work for approximatelythree days and the second call was made after the claimant had been awayfrom work for approximately five days. Quite apart from the information isthe question of justification.CLW2 had also testified that the relevant calls were made to Raj (COW3)from Coffee House Taman Terrace and informed him that the claimant hadsevere back pain and was unable to get out of bed and asked him to informthe claimants boss that he is on emergency leave until he gets better. It isstrange that there is no medical report to substantiate this. Even if he preferredtraditional medicine he could still get a confirmation from the hotels panel toverify the fact that he was in such condition.

Meanwhile COW3 in his testimony contended that the claimants wife calledthe hotel on 20 March 1999 and informed him that the claimant will be onmedical leave. Furthermore he testified that he did not receive any call fromeither the claimants sister or wife on 29 March 1999.

ab

c

d

e

f

g

h

i


2004

The claimant during the course of these proceedings had also produced BasirunAbdullah (Bomoh) (CLW3 who had carried out the traditional treatment onthe claimant. Basirun referred the claimants illness as Penyakit BendaHalus). He did not corroborate the claimants description of the nature ofhis physical condition. However he could not offer this Honourable Court anydocumentary proof of the nature of the claimants illness as well as the factthat he had carried out the traditional treatment on the claimant save for hisown words. Furthermore he could not even furnish details concerning therelevant dates in which the traditional treatment took place.

The Claimants CaseThe claimant testified that his absence between the period of 6 March 1999to 7 March 1999 and 15 March 1999 to 27 March 1999 were known to thecompany. The company had also condoned the issue at the time of the showcause letter dated 25 March 1999. The claimant also averred that that asbetween the stated dates 17th, 18th, 24th and 25th were his off-days. Theclaimant further testified that he had informed the company of his absencethrough his sister and wife. The claimant had written to the company inOctober 1999 requesting for advance salary to go for traditional treatment ofhis illness. The company advanced the sum of RM500 to the claimant for thatpurpose. The claimant further testified that in the month of December 1998he applied for three months leave to undergo medical treatment of his illness.The claimants application was refused but the claimant appealed and thecompany approved from 4 January 1999 to 31 January 1999.

CLW2, the claimants sister, testified that she called COW3 on two occasionsand informed him that the claimant required to take emergency leave. Shealso informed COW3 that the claimant was very sick and unable to get up.She further wrote a letter at Co. p. 31 dated 2 April 1999 to inform thecompany that she had informed the company of the claimants emergencyleave.

CLW3 informed the court that he had used traditional method to treat theclaimant of his sickness. He could not remember the dates but confirmed itwas in the month of March 1999. He used traditional massage and traditionalmedication in treating the claimant. The claimants condition at the time wasvery bad as he was only lying in bed.

The LawIn the case of Goon Kwee Phoy v. J & P Coats (M) Bhd [1981] 2 MLJ129 Raja Azlan Shah CJ (as he then was) observed the following atp. 42:

...Where representations are made and are referred to the Industrial Court forenquiry, it is the duty of that court to determine whether the termination or

ab

c

d

e

f

g

h

i



dismissal is with or without just cause or excuse. If the employer chooses togive a reason for the action taken by him, the duty of the Industrial Court willbe to enquire whether that excuse or reason has or has not been made out. If itfinds as a fact that it has not been proved then the inevitable conclusion mustbe that the termination or dismissal was without just cause and excuse. Theproper enquiry of the court is the reason advanced by it and that court or theHigh Court cannot go into another reason not relied on by the employer or findone for it.

Wong Yuen Hock v. Syarikat Hong Leong Assurance Sdn Bhd & AnorAppeal [1995] 3 CLJ 344 the Federal Court stated at p. 352 that:

On the authorities, we were of the view that the main and only function of theIndustrial Court in dealing with a reference under s. 20 of the Act (unlessotherwise lawfully provided by the terms of the reference), is to determinewhether the misconduct or irregularities complained of by management as thegrounds of dismissal were in fact committed by the workman, and if so, whethersuch grounds constitute just cause or excuse for the dismissal.

The above principle was reaffirmed in the case of Milan Auto Sdn Bhd v.Wong Seh Yen [1995] 4 CLJ 449 where Mohamed Azmi FCJ at pp. 454-455 COA delivering the grounds of judgment of the court had this to say:

As pointed out by this Court recently in Wong Yuen Hock v Syarikat HongLeong Assurance & Another Appeal [1995] 3 CLJ 344, the function of theIndustrial Court in dismissal cases on reference under s. 20 is twofold, first, todetermine whether the misconduct complained of by the employer has beenestablished, and secondly whether the proven misconduct constitutes just causeor excuse for the dismissal.

The law relating to absenteeism is well illustrated in CK Lee & Associatesv. Goh Shaw Yuh [2002] 3 ILR 645 where it was held by the court onp. 645 that:

It was important to touch upon in respect of reciprocal duties of employers totake reasonable steps themselves to investigate and enquire of the backgroundfacts causing employees absences, as much as it is the duty of the employeesthemselves who have to take reasonable steps to inform their employers ofwhatever predicament they are facing or giving rise to the emergency situation.

In the same case on p. 651, Lvnock v. Cereal Packaging Ltd (1988) 510,[1988] ICR 670 described the appropriate responses of an employer faced witha series of intermittent absence as follows:

The approach of an employer in this situation is, in our view, one to be basedon those three words which we have used earlier in our judgment - sympathy,understanding and compassion...

ab

c

d

e

f

g

h

i


2004

Harvey On Industrial Relation and Employment Law under topic ILL Healthand Absenteeism:

So there is a conflict between the needs of the business, and those of theemployee, and the tribunal must be satisfied that the employer has sought toresolve the conflict in a manner which a reasonable employer might have adopted.In the course of doing this, he will have to show that he carried out aninvestigation which meant that he was sufficiently informed of the medicalposition.... etc.

The Issues

The issues before the court are:

1) Was the claimant dismissed by the company2) What were the reasons given by the company for the claimants dismissal.3) Had the reasons been proven and if proven does it constitute a

just cause or excuse.DecisionThe company dismissed the claimant after he was found guilty by a Panel ofthe Domestic Inquiry. The claimant was found guilty of the second chargethat is:

You have continuously been absent from work from 6.3.1999 to 7.3.1999, 15.3.1999to 27.3.1999 without prior leave or any reasonable excuse. You have failed toinform or attempt to inform your employer of your absence.

From the above charge, it is obvious that the only reason for the claimantsdismissal is due to his continuous absence for a period of 13 days. The saidabsence was without reasonable excuse and without any attempt to informthe company. Under the circumstances the company has to prove four mainingredients in the said charge. They are:

(1) That the claimant was absent for the said period.(2) The absence was without prior leave of the company.(3) The absence was without reasonable excuse.(4) The claimant failed to inform the company of his absence.The burden is on the company to prove the four ingredients as stated in thecharge. For the first ingredient, it is not in dispute that the claimant was absentfor a certain period. The company admits that for the alleged period of theabsence the company had included the claimants off-days for 4 days. Theshow cause letter is also not consistent with the charge. In view of this, thecourt finds some irregularities to the first ingredient.

ab

c

d

e

f

g

h

i



The second ingredient that the claimants absence was without prior leave.From the evidence it is true that no approval was obtained by the claimantprior to his absence. Prior to being absent without leave, the claimant had beenon medical leave for quite sometime, this is admitted by the companyswitnesses. The said absence started on 15 March 1999 but COW1 admittedthat claimants wife called the office on 13 March 1999 and 20 March 1999to inform of the claimants illness. Other than that no proof of any approvalwas obtained by the claimant for his absence at the material time.

The next issue is whether the claimants absence was with or withoutreasonable cause or excuse. From the evidence before the court it is patentlyclear that the claimants problem with his health started in October 1998. Thisis confirmed by COW1 in his evidence when claimant applied for advancesalary for his traditional treatment. The claimant applied for RM1,000 but thecompany only approved RM500. In December 1998 the claimant applied forthree months leave but was rejected by the company. The claimant thenappealed and was given leave from 4 January 1999 to 31 January 1999. Theclaimant made the appeal because his condition was becoming more serious.

COW1 testified under cross-examination that for the 2nd charge the claimanthad a good excuse and the hotel was aware of the claimants condition sinceOctober 1998. COW1 further testified that for the 2nd part of the secondcharge, the claimant had informed the company of his absence through hiswife and sister. COW1 admitted that the claimant met him and Jimmy, theformer Human Resources Manager, and explained to them that the claimantssickness could not be cured by western medicine and the claimant had to gofor traditional treatment.

COW1 admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the claimants case. Itwas Jimmy, the former Human Resources Manager, who did the investigationon claimants case. He further admitted that most of the information aboutthe case was told to him by Jimmy or others. However the company did notcall Jimmy to testify during the proceedings although the company is awarethat Jimmy is now working at E & O Hotel.

For the third ingredient the evidence is clear that the claimant had a goodreason or excuse for his absence. The fourth ingredient that the claimant hadfailed to inform the company of his absence has also not been proved by thecompany. The evidence is clear that the company was fully aware of theclaimants health condition since October 1998. The claimant had personallyinformed COW1 and Jimmy that he had to undergo traditional treatment. Theclaimants wife and sister called the company to inform that the claimant wasvery sick. It is quite normal that the traditional healer could not provide anymedical certificate for the claimant as he is not medically qualified to do so.

ab

c

d

e

f

g

h

i


2004

CLW3 however came to court to testify that he had treated the claimantduring the month of March 1999. CLW3 could not give the exact date but hecould remember it was in March 1999. For the court this is good enoughevidence to support the claimants contention of his sickness. The court cantexpect CLW3 to remember the exact dates he treated the claimant as he isnot a medical doctor where everything is recorded.

At the same time the court must also consider the claimants previous record.The court is amazed at the number of commendation letters the claimantreceived during his tenure with the company. Not only he has no tendency tobe a habitual absentee but was given a certificate for full attendance in 1995.COW1 admitted the claimants unblemished record of services. The claimanthad never received any show cause letter from the company but onlycommendation letters from the company and the hotel guests.

In totality, the court is convinced that the claimant had given his bestperformance to the company until he became sick. It was just unfortunate forthe claimant to suffer such sickness in late 1998 and early 1999. The companywas fully aware of the claimants problem and could have taken some actionto get a temporary replacement for the claimant. Despite the claimant givinghis excellent performance to the company, when he fell sick the company hadnot bothered to consider his appeal for the three months leave. No one fromthe company visited the claimant at his house to see the claimants conditionwhen his wife or sister called to inform the claimant could not even stand up.What the company did was to take disciplinary action against the claimant andto dismiss him from the company.

From the evidence, the Domestic Inquiry was not properly conducted by thecompany. There are a lot of irregularities in the manner the Domestic Inquirywas conducted. As stated by COW1 that the claimant was not allowed tosee, hear and cross-examine witnesses. The claimant was not given fullopportunity to defend himself. However, despite the irregularities of theDomestic Inquiry, the court is aware of numerous decided cases that the caseis not fatal due to the defect in Domestic Inquiry. The Industrial Court is theproper forum to adjust on the issue of the claimants dismissal whether it wasdone with just cause. Under the circumstances the court is obliged to hearand evaluate the evidence adduced before the court.

On the Companys submission and the cited case of Langkasuka Resort v.Mariappan Arumokan [2002] 3 ILR 1048, the court must state that thepresent case is totally different from the above case. Each case has to bedecided on its peculiar facts and circumstances. In the instant case the factsand circumstances bears a burden on this court to view it differently and givea different decision. The other cases as cited by the companys learned counsel

ab

c

d

e

f

g

h

i



could also be viewed differently. The court agrees with the principle enunciatedin the cases but it has to look at the facts and circumstances of each case inorder to adopt the principles stated.

After a perusal of the evidence oral and documentary before the court, thecourt is of the view that the company had not proved its case on the balanceof probabilities. The claimant had shown a good reason and excuse for hisabsence which the company was all the time aware. The claimant had alsoinformed the company of his absence through his wife and sister. The courtis convinced that the claimant was really very sick during his absence. Thecourt has to accept the fact that the traditional healer could not issue medicalcertificate but his evidence in court is sufficient to support the claimantssickness. What the company should have done was to visit the claimant athis house to give moral support and at the same to be able to see theclaimants condition. Throughout the claimants tenure of eight years with thecompany he had given an outstanding performance to his employer. This issupported by the number of commendation letters the claimant received fromthe company and the guests.

In view of the above the court holds that the claimants dismissal is withoutjust cause and excuse and is against the rule of natural justice. The court isof the opinion that reinstatement here is not a proper remedy and the courtorders as follows:

1) Backwages from the date of dismissal to the last date of hearing andsubject to a maximum of 24 months ie, RM1,500 x 24 = RM36,000

2) Compensation in lieu of reinstatement of one months salary for everycompleted year of service to be calculated to the nearest figure ie,RM1,500 x 8 = RM12,000 to the total of RM48,000

3) The claimant was jobless for three months after his dismissal. Then hestarted selling food at a roadside stall. On 1 January 2000 the claimantgot a job at a hotel as a supervisor with a pay of RM1,300. Bearing inmind the case of Dr. James Alfred, Sabah v. Koperasi SerbagunaSanyo, Sabah and Anor [2001] 3 CLJ 541, the court is of the view thata deduction of 20% would be equitable to both parties. So RM48,000minus RM9,600 (20%) = RM38,400

4) The above sum of RM38,400 to be paid by the company to the claimantthrough his solicitors M/s Jessy & Associates within 30 days from thedate of receipt of this award.

Unjust dismissal.

Documents

Absence and Employer Duty to Investigate Absence