Industrial Court Finds Dismissal of Senior Manager Unjust and Without Cause
CASEINDUSTRIAL COURT
5/9/20252 min read
Anslem Victor Lim v. Destine Mei Sdn Bhd
(Industrial Court Award)
No. 104 of 2025 | [2025] 2 MELR 354)
On 20 January 2025, the Industrial Court in Kuala Lumpur handed down its decision in Anslem Victor Lim v. Destine Mei Sdn Bhd, allowing the claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal. Puvarasan & Associates acted for the claimant, Anslem Victor Lim, who had challenged the termination of his employment on the basis that it was effected without just cause or excuse.
The claimant commenced employment with the company on 9 January 2015 as a Senior Manager in Business Development. On 23 September 2019, he was served with a series of show cause letters alleging misconduct, including making disparaging remarks against the company, misuse of expense claims, and failure to disclose health information. The claimant was cumulatively suspended for a period of six weeks, which the court found to be in breach of Subsection 14(2) of the Employment Act 1955. A domestic inquiry was later conducted, which the claimant contended was procedurally flawed due to the appointment of junior and inexperienced panel members, the absence of proper records, and the denial of a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations.
The Industrial Court agreed with the claimant’s submissions and held that the company had failed to discharge the burden of proving that the dismissal was with just cause or excuse. The court found that there was non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements and that the suspension period exceeded the maximum allowed under the law. The domestic inquiry, which was cited as justification for the dismissal, was conducted in an irregular and unfair manner, and the court was not furnished with proper documentation or a fair record of the proceedings. It was further held that the company did not tender sufficient documentary or credible evidence to substantiate the allegations of misconduct or poor performance, nor did it produce proof that the claimant had been warned at any point prior to his dismissal.
Importantly, the court reiterated that even if misconduct had been proven, an employer must still consider whether dismissal was a proportionate response. In the present case, the court concluded that the dismissal was hastily and arbitrarily executed and amounted to a breach of the principles of natural justice. The allegations raised were found to be vague, unsubstantiated, and brought forth in bad faith. No previous misconduct had been recorded, and less severe measures could have been adopted.
The court relied on established industrial law authorities including Wong Chee Hong v. Cathay Organisation Malaysia Sdn Bhd [1987] 1 MELR 32, Ireka Construction Berhad v. Chantiravathan Subramaniam James [1995] 1 MELR 373, and Telekom Malaysia Kawasan Utara v. Krishnan Kutty Sanguni Nair [2002] 1 MELR 4, to affirm that the burden rests squarely on the employer to justify a dismissal. In the absence of such justification, the dismissal is deemed unlawful.
Having found that the claimant’s dismissal was without just cause or excuse, the court declined to order reinstatement due to the breakdown of trust between the parties but directed that an appropriate monetary remedy be awarded in due course.
Contacts
06 - 794 7480 || 012 - 441 7119
puvarasanassociates@gmail.com
2025 || PUVARASAN & ASSOCIATES ADVOCATES AND SOLICITORS || WEB DESIGN BY AMIRUL SYAFIQ
