INDUSTRIAL COURT MALAYSIA CASE NO. 16(20)/4-94/14 BETWEEN JOHANES BIN JAMALUDDIN AND GUOCERA TILE INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD. AWARD NO: 841 OF YEAR 2017 BEFORE :_ Y.A. TUAN DUNCAN SIKODOL Chairman (sitting alone) VENUE : Industrial Court of Malaysia Johor Branch DATE OF REFERENCE: — 11.12.2013. DATES OF MENTION : 07.04.2014; 10.07.2014; 10.09.2014; 07.06.2015; 18.10.2015; 04.01.2016 DATES OF HEARING : 25.03.2015; 26.03.2015; 06.09.2015; 24.01.2017. REPRESENTATION : — Mr.A. Sivananthan From Malaysian Trades Union Congress Representative for the Claimant. Mr. N. Sivabalah From Messrs Shearn Delamore & Co. Counsel for the Respondent.REFERENC! This is a reference by the Honourable Minister of Human Resources under Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("the Act") arising out of the dismissal of JOHANES BIN JAMALUDDIN (hereinafter referred to as “the Claimant’) by GUOCERA TILE INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD. (herein referred to as “the Company”) on the 5" August 2013. AWARD. 1. This case was heard before the former Chairman Tuan Roslan Bin Mat Nor. After Tuan Roslan was transferred to the Prosecution Division of the Attorney Generals Chamber, the Honourable President of the Industrial Court directed that this case be heard by me until its conclusion. Brief Background Facts 2. The Claimant commenced employment with Company as Human Resources Manager on the 3% May 2010 and was confirmed in his post on the 1* September 2010. As Human Resources Manager, his scope of duties includes but not limited to recruiting foreign workers and securing their work permits. 3. Following an investigations conducted by the Company at Kluang Branch pertaining to cash advances made between 1.8.2012 — 2.1.2013 for the purpose of levy payments to the Immigration Department for the renewal of work permits, it transpired that there was an amount of RM36,400.00 which was unaccounted for. 4. Pursuant to the investigation, the Company issued the Claimant with a show cause letter dated 16" May 2013 to provide his explanation. Unsatisfied with the Claimant's explanation, a charge letter and a notice of Domestic Inquiry was issued tothe Claimant on the 25" June 2013 informing him that a Domestic Inquiry would be held against him on the 4" July 2013 with the following charges: CHARGE 14 That you as the HR Manager, who is responsible in managing the work permit process with the Immigration Department of Malaysia for foreign workers at GTI Kiuang, failed to discharge your duty of care and responsibility by being negligent in supervising the whole work permit application process between July to December 2012, hence caused financial losses of RM36,400.00 to the Company. CHARGE 2 That you as the HR Manager, failed to discharge your duty of care and responsibilty as the HR Manager, when you deliberately did not report to the Management or Group HR, immediately or at the first available instance, the misappropriation of RM36,400.00 given to your then subordinate Ms Mohaini for the purpose of foreign workers application process. CHARGE 3 That you as the HR Manager failed to discharge your duty of care and responsibility as the HR Manager, by allowing your subordinate; Sanjeev to instruct the finance department to issue a case cheque for the total amount of RM231,019.50 for the work permit application process, knowing well that the levy payment should be paid by the Bank Draft payable to Ketua Pengarah Imigresen. This has resulted of financial losses of RM36,400.00 to the Company. By your action or inaction, you had acted in breach of Para 2.1 of the Company's Code of Ethics and/or your implied duty of fidelity to act faithfully and you had therefore betrayed the trust and confidence of the Company in you as a management staff of GTIk".5. Vide letter dated the 2 August 2013, the panel of the Domestic Inquiry found the Claimant guilty in respect of all the charges preferred against him and by punishment order he was dismissed with immediate effect that is from the 2" August 2013. 6. The claimant now contends that his dismissal by the Company was without just cause or excuse. He contends that he did not commit the misconduct as charged. He therefore seeks to be reinstated to his former position or be given compensation in lieu of reinstatement. His last drawn salary prior to his dismissal was RM8,653.00. The Law 7. In the often cited case of MILAN AUTO SDN BHD v WONG SHE YEN (1995) 4 CLJ 449, the duty of the Industrial Court in dismissal cases on a reference under s. 20 was stated by His Lordship Mohd Azmi FCJ as follows; “As pointed out by this Court recently in Wong Yuen Hock v Hong Leong Assurance (1995) 3 CLJ 344, the function of the Industrial Court in dismissal cases on a reference under s. 20 is twofold: first, to determine whether the misconduct complained by the employer has been established and secondly whether the proven misconduct constitutes just cause or excuse for the dismissal” 8. It is trite law that the Company bears the burden to prove that the claimant had committed the alleged misconduct and the conduct warrants the Claimant's dismissal. See Ireka Construction Bhd v Chantiravanathan a/l Subramaniam James (1995) 2 ILR 11 (Award No. 245 of 1995). 9. The Company needs only to prove misconduct justifying the dismissal or termination on the balance of probabilities. See Telekom Malaysia Kawasan Utara vKrishnan Kutty all Sanguni & Anor (2002) 3 CLJ 314 (CA). Witnesses 10. The following witnesses testified at the hearing of this case: COW1 - Choo Joon Kong and his witness statement was marked as COWS-1 COW2 - Norazlin Abdul Aziz and her witness statement was marked as COWS-2 COWS - Chin Huay Min and her witness statement was marked as COWS-3. COW4 - Tan Lin Chee and her witness statement was marked as COWS-4 COWS - Teh Yok Eng and his witness statement was marked as COWS-5. CLW1- Johanes Bin Jamaluddin and his witness statement was marked as CLWS-1 The following bundle of documents were also used in court and marked as follows; Claimant's Bundle of Documents - CLB1, Company's Bundle of Documents - COB, Email from Choo Joon Kong to Norazlin Abdul Aziz and Lim Kian Meng - COB2 Issues for determination 11. In this case, it is an undisputed fact from the evidence that the Claimant's ‘employment with the Respondent's Company was terminated vide letter dated the 2 August 2013. Based on Colgate Palmolive (M) Sdn Bhd v Yap Kok Foong & Another Appeal (2001) 3 CLJ 9, It now remains to be considered whether the termination was with just cause or excuse. A Domestic Inquiry had been conducted in this case but there was no complaint from the Claimant as to its validity. As such, in deciding whether the Claimant's dismissal was with just cause or excuse, the Court shall take into account the evidence adduced both at the Domestic Inquiry as well as during the trial of this instant case.Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment with the Company was with just cause or excuse? Company’s Contention 12. The Company states that the termination of the Claimant's services by the Company is justified as he had failed to discharge his duty of care and responsibility as a Manager in charge of Human Resources. The Claimant was expected to perform various tasks assigned to him responsibly but due to his negligent, caused the Company to loose RM36,400.00. 13. It is the Company's pleaded case that notwithstanding the Claimant's right to delegate his responsibilities to his subordinates, nevertheless it is incumbent upon him to be appraised of all working matters within the department, in this case work permits, and the failure to detect the anomalies is reflective of negligence on the Claimant's part. The Claimant cannot be expected to merely rely on his subordinate without carrying out any supervision. The failure to ensure compliance of all matters under his authority is reflective of his abdication of duties which would warrant his dismissal. Claimant’s Contention 14, It is the Claimant's case that his termination of employment was without just cause or excuse. He said that he has done all he could in discharging his duty of care and responsibility as the Manager of Human Resources and that any wrong doings that occurred was beyond his control. The Law 15. It is an entrenched rule of Industrial Jurisprudence that an employee owes a duty of care to the employer. According to G.P Malhortra in his writing “The Law of 6Industrial Disputes” Vol 11 page 773, he said as follows: “A workman owes a duty to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duty. In other words an employee must exercise reasonable care and skill in the performance of his duties... However, in deciding what is reasonable care “the standards of men and not those of angels" have to be applied. The Court must focus and direct its attention to the issue of whether or not the employee had performed his role to the required standard. See Sun Media Group Sdn Bhd v Ganesh Sahatthevan (2006) 2 ILR 1057. Thus, in Lau Hui Chiong v Ricosoon Sdn Bhd (2010) 2 INS 0926, the Claimant who was a site supervisor was found guilty of misconduct when the pipings and toilets leaked after earth filling was done eventhough the problems were caused directly by the subcontractors. Here the Court held that the Claimant had failed in his job as site supervisor in this very crucial job in not instructing the subcontractors not to do the earth fling before the pipings were tested. He was supposed to have supervised the subcontractors to make sure that everything was in order. The subcontractors were supposed to have consulted him before the earth filling proceeded. Thus based on the facts, the Court therefore said that the Claimant had indeed failed to perform his duty as was required of him in his capacity as site supervisor. Similarly, in Vasuthevan A/L Sivagurunathan v Taiyo Resort (KL) Bhd & Anor (2000) I LNS 272, the High Court upheld the dismissal of the Claimant who had failed to fulfil its supervisory role. The Court said that.. being head of department, the Claimant cannot say that it was not his responsibility to do so..” 16. This would mean that the Claimant in this instant case cannot shift the blame and responsibility to other personnel/ Department when he was the Head of the HR 7Department and responsible for the working. Evidence adduced by the Company 17. The Respondent called 5 witnesses to prove their case whereas the Claimant is the only witness for himself. 18. COW in his witness statement COWS-1 testified that he is now no longer with the Company. At that material time, he was the Senior Manager of the Company's Branch in Kluang. He said that on the 25" March 2013, he sent an email to the Head of Human Resources of the Company at that time, Norazlin Abdul Aziz and Lim Kian Meng, the General Manager of the Company's Branch in Kluang where he highlighted amongst others that there were advances of monies for work permits of approximately RM64,000.00 which were unsupported by receipts and requested them to take necessary actions. 19. He went on to say that the said matter was investigated by the internal audit and upon submission of some receipts by the said Sanjeev all Janardhanan for the payment of the cash advances, the unaccounted for amount was subsequently found to be approximately RM36,400.00. 20. When asked about the process for the issuance of a cash cheque, he said as follows: The HR Department will prepare a memo requesting for a sum of money along with the cash cheque which is approved by the Head of Department. The memo and cash cheque is then submitted to the Finance Department which the said department in turn will verify the amount requested against the details of the foreign workers provided by the HR department. The issuance of the cash cheque he added is 8based on the approval of the requisitioning authority on the memo who in this case is the Claimant. The cash cheque will then be forwarded to the HR department for its further action. Thereafter, the receipts will then be issued by the Immigration Department. 21. He denied the allegation by the Claimant that the Finance Department had failed to inform him on the failure of Mohaini to submit the receipts upon utilizing the advance monies where it could have been resolved at an earlier date because he said the monies for the cash advancement were released to the Human Resource Department based on the Claimant's authorisation and instruction. He also denied the allegation by the Claimant that the Finance Department could have rejected the requisition for the cash cheque by Sanjeev in the sum of RM231,019.50 as it is their right to approve or reject the said application because the Issuance of the cash cheque is based on the approval of the requisitioning authority on the memo which is the Claimant. As to the allegation by the Claimant that the Finance Department should be the one to chase after the receipt from Mohaini bte Mohamed, he said it was not so. He said it was incumbent upon the recipient of the cash cheque to produce the receipt which in this case the said Sanjeev and as head of HR the Claimant was responsible for ensuring due compliance as these matters were under his authority. The fact that the money was not paid to the Immigration Department by Mohaini, he said the Claimant should have immediately reported the matter to the Finance Department the moment he became aware that the monies were unaccounted for. That a cash cheque is issued based on the approval of the requisitioning authority was also confirmed by COW3, the Assistant Finance Manager of the Company's Branch in Kluang. 22. The Company's 2™ witness was Norazlin Abdul Aziz ( COW2 ) and her witness statement was marked as COWS-2. She testified that she was the Head of the ‘Company's Human Resources Department at the material time and that the Claimant reports to him. He said that the Claimant never informed her about the unaccounted 9for cash advances for work permits in the sum of RM64,000.00 but got to know it from Choo Joon Kong, the Senior Finance Manager via email. He went on to say that upon being informed of the matter aforesaid, he flew to Kluang and upon investigation he said that the Claimant and his subordinate one Sanjeev all Janardhanan alleged that Mohaini was responsible for the unaccounted amount. It was only during his investigation according to COW2 that the Claimant told him about the unaccounted sum of money. He went on further to say that based on his investigation, the Claimant failed to take any action when he was aware that the said Mohaini had left the Company. In fact, he said the Claimant only purported to send the letters therein to the said Mohaini months later and that these letters were never sent or copied to the Group HR. He said the first time he saw the letters was when he went to Kluang upon receiving the email from Choo. It was only then, he said that the Claimant showed the letter to him. The Claimant, he added should have highlighted it to the Finance Department's attention at the very outset. 23. In paragraph 8 of the rejoinder, the Claimant alleges that the work permit application process between July 2012 to December 2012 was supervised by Sanjeev, Mohaini's immediate superior and not by him and that Sanjeev never highlighted the issue to him. To this COW2 said that even if the said Mohaini was not supervised directly by the Claimant, it is incumbent upon the Claimant to be appraised of all working matters within his Department. It was also she added incumbent upon the Claimant to ensure due compliance of all matters under his authority whether or not, any issues were highlighted to him. 24, The rest of the other Company witnesses also confirmed that they were not informed earlier by the Claimant about the problems relating to the renewal of work permits and passports for foreign workers neither were they informed that the non renewal of passports were due to the alleged wrongful actions of his subordinate, Mohaini.Evaluation and Findings 25. The Court shall now in this instant case assess the evidence adduced by the Respondent's witnesses and the Claimant in order to determine whether the respondent's decision to terminate the service of the Claimant was with just cause or excuse. 26. In respect of the first charge, the Claimant denies that he was negligent in the discharge of his duties. He claimed as follows; "saya telah melantik Encik Sanjeev, Eksekutif, Sumber Manusia bagi membantu saya menguruskan perkara-perkara Perhubungan Perindustrian (Industrial Relation) dan Perhubungan Pekerja (Employees Relation) termasuklah urusan berkaitan dengan pekerja- pekerja asing seperti urusan pembaharuan permit kerja. Puan Mohaini binti Mohamed menguruskan pembaharuan permit kerja pekerja asing dan beliau adalah dibawah jagaan Encik Sanjeev. Beliau melaporkan terus _mengenai urusan pembaharuan permit kerja kepada Encik Sanjeev dan bukannya saya. Setiap hari bekerja jam 8.00 pagi saya mempengerusikan mesyuarat dengan kakitangan-kakitangan Sumber Manusia dan juga mesyuarat mingguan yang dihadiri oleh ketua-ketua bahagian di mana Encik Sanjeev juga menghadirinya namun tiada pun perkara berkaitan penyalahgunaan wang disuarakan atau dibangkitkan oleh beliau. Jabatan Kewangan/Akaun juga tidak memaklumkan kepada saya mengenai perkara ini 27. From the above evidence, the Claimant appears to be shifting the blame and responsibility to other personnel and department when he himself is the Head of Human Resources Department and should be responsible for the working matters within his own department. According to him, he contends that the matters were ulhandled by Sanjeev/Mohaini. On the other hand, he states that he supervised the foreign workers permits process between July to December. He seems to be contradicting himself whether or not he was responsible for managing the work permit process. In any organisation where a chain of command is in place, such person in command cannot absolve oneself from his or her responsibility by putting the blame on others or their subordinates. Notwithstanding the delegation of responsibilities, it is still the Claimant's responsibility to oversee and ensure due compliance of matters which were within the purview of his department. As head of the HR Department, it is the duty of the Claimant to ensure that the work permit application process are supervised properly which in this case the Court is of the view that the Claimant had clearly failed. Similarly, the Claimant's inefficiency and negligence was further proven when he failed to take the appropriate remedial action by informing the Finance Department of the same. When he discovered that Mohaini had collected the monies for the work permits without renewing them as early as November 2012, he did not take immediate action to inform the Finance Department, instead, he still continued to approve the requisition for cash cheques made by Sanjeev in November and December 2012. 28. From the evidence herein adduced, the Court is satisfied that the Company has Proven on a balance of probability the above charge against the Claimant. 29. In respect of charge no 2, the Claimant alleges that he did inform the matter to COW2 (GM) and Lim Kian Meng. However, no evidence was adduced by him to support the same. In fact from the evidence of COW2, she only became aware of the purported misappropriation of monies when she conducted her investigation into the matter. She testified that based on her investigation, the Claimant failed to take any action when he was aware that the said Mohaini had left the Company. The Claimant only purported to send the letters to the said Mohaini months later. However, these were never sent/copied to the Group Human Resources. The first time COW2 said she saw the letters was when she went down to Kluang after COW1's email on the 1225.3.2013. It was only then that the Claimant showed the letters to her. 30. From the evidence above, it is very clear that the Claimant had deliberately failed to report to the Management or Group HR. the misappropriation of RM36,400.00 by Mohaini at the first available instance. | agree with the Company that what the Claimant was trying to do in this case was to cover up the problem and resolve it quietly so that he could avoid disciplinary action against himself. This can be deduced from the evidence of the Claimant himself where he admitted that he did not want to report the matter as he wanted to resolve the same himself when he said as follows : “ ..we also informed Ms Chin Huay Min that we would make a full report of this case to the top management after we had settled the issue.” 31. Further evidence about the Claimant's intention to conceal this information to avoid disciplinary action against himself can be seen from the two (2) police reports lodged in connection with this matter. The first police report lodged by Sanjeev did not mention anything about misappropriation of money. It was only after COW2 instructed the Claimant and Sanjeev to lodged another report that the same was mentioned. 32. | agree with the Company that the Claimant's assertion that they were unable to get an estimation for the shortfall of the monies before lodging of the second police report as the investigation was still ongoing is an after thought because what is important is not the amount that was missing but the fact that there was misappropriation of the monies and thus should be reported immediately. 33. Thus the Court after considering the evidence adduced is also satisfied that the Company has proven its case against the Claimant in respect of the 2 charge.34, Turning now to the 3" charge. Here the Claimant claimed as follows; “Saya menafikan bahawa saya telah membenarkan En. Sanjeev instruct Jabatan Kewangan untuk mengeluarkan cek tunai untuk pembayaran process permohonan permit kerja. Saya hanya membenarkan En. Sanjeev membuat permohonan ‘request’ mendapatkan sejumlah wang daripada Jabatan Kewangan untuk tujuan pembayaran process permohonan permit kerja. Kelulusan pengeluaran cek tunai hanya boleh di lakukan pengurus Kewangan dan bukan pengurus Sumber Manusia 35. However, from the evidence adduced, although it is true that the said Sanjeev made the requisition for the cash cheque, but based on the Company's SOP on the issuance of cash cheque, COW1 said that the issuance of the same is based on the approval of the requisitioning authority on the memo, which in this case, the requisitioning authority in the memo was the Claimant. Therefore, it would be very irresponsible on the part of the Claimant to shift the blame to other personnel or department when it is his duty as HR Manager to ensure due compliance of all matters under his authority. 36. That a cash cheque is issued based on the approval of the requisitioning authority was confirmed by COW1 and COW4, Thus, therefore based on the requests forms ie memos for the period between 1.8.2012 - 2.1.2013, the requisitioning authority was the Claimant. The contention of the Claimant that it was the Finance Department's responsibility to chase and get the receipt from Mohaini after she was given the cash cheque in advance cannot be true or correct as it is for Sanjeev to produce the receipts for cash cheque and or advance and for the Claimant as HR Manager to ensure due compliance by Sanjeev even if he had delegated his responsibilities.37. Accordingly, based on the evidence herein adduced before me, the Court is also satisfied that the Company has also established its case against the Claimant in respect of the 3" charge. Was the Claimant's dismissal on the 2’ August 2013 with just cause or excuse? 38. The issue then before this Court is whether the dismissal of the Claimant is appropriate in the circumstances of this case. 39. In Warren Zawawi Hussein v Wagner Global Services (M) Sdn Bhd (2012)3 ILJ 34, the Industrial Court decided that the Industrial Relations Act (IRA) requires the court to act in accordance with equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities and legal form. The Court opines that the cause for dismissal must be just when an employee has been dismissed. The burden is on the employer to show that the dismissal was warranted and it is for the court to decide whether in the circumstances and having regards to s. 30(5) the employer had acted reasonably in treating that reason as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee. Equity after all has been defined by lord Cowper LC in Dudley (Lord) v Dudley (1705) Prec ch241, 244 as moral virtue which qualifies, moderates and reforms the rigor, hardness and edge of the law and is an universal truth. And, on the facts it is the court's findings that the Company has not discharged its burden. She went on to say that... “if the measure taken by the employer is outside the band of reasonableness or is an outrageous defiance of logic the decision should not be immune from review". 40. This principle was echoed by the Federal Court in the case of Norizan Bakar v Panzana Enterprise Sdn Bhd (2013) 4 ILR 447 where it held that the doctrine of proportionality of punishment was inbuilt into the IRA and the Industrial Court was duty bound to decide, using that doctrine, whether a proven misconduct constituted just cause or excuse for dismissal. Under the IRA, there is an inbuilt mechanism through Isitem 5 of the 2 Schedule to consider the doctrine of proportionality of punishment. Item 5 provides as follows: Any relief given shall take into account contributory misconduct of the workman. "The Court also went on to say that the IC could substitute its own view, in place of the employer’s view, as to what should be the appropriate penalty for an employee’s misconduct.” Further, the court also decided that the "IC had the jurisdiction to decide whether dismissal was too harsh a punishment in the circumstances when ascertaining an award under s.20 (3) of the IRA." 41, The claimant's act of misconduct detailed in the charge cannot be denied However, the Court is of the view that the respondent's decision to dismiss the Claimant was without regards to equity, good conscience and substantial merits of the case, thus amounting to the Claimant's dismissal without just cause or excuse. In the first place, as the HR Manager, he cannot be expected to do all the work himself. That, is the reason why he has an assistant to assist him. And it is very normal for a superior to rely on his assistants though the overall responsibility is still with the superior. In this case, this is exactly what the Claimant did but unfortunately, his assistants failed him. Both Sanjeev and Mohaini never informed him about the problem faced by them in respect of foreign workers. This problem was only brought to his attention at the end of November 2012 by payroll officer, Puan Nora Mohamed. Upon realising these problems, he did instruct Sanjeev to investigate the matter, asked Sanjeev to lodged a police report and suspended Mohaini, though not immediately. Of course, when he discovered the problem, he should have, as a responsible Manager informed the management about it immediately but did not. 42. Be it as it may, although the Claimant did not inform the management immediately, there was no evidence adduced before me that the claimant's act of not 16doing so was a dishonest act per se. In the view of this Court, it was more because he wanted to try and resolve the problem first in his capacity as the HR Manager. 43. In the premises, the court is of the view that the punishment of dismissal in this case was harsh and for that reason the punishment of dismissal against the Claimant is set aside as being without just cause or excuse. Conclusion 44, In the final analysis, based on the totality of evidence adduced by both parties as well as submissions made and also having regards to equity and good conscience as well as substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities and legal form as stated in s. 30(5) IRA, this court finds that the Claimant's dismissal was without just cause or excuse. The termination is now rendered unjust and unlawful. Accordingly, the Claimant's claim is hereby allowed. Hence | shall now examine the remedy. Remedy 45. Based on the Court's assessment of the industrial climate between the parties, it is certainly not conducive to reinstate the Claimant as the relationship between the company and the Claimant has been badly strained. In the circumstances, it is inappropriate to order the remedy of reinstatement. Instead, the claimant will be awarded compensation under two (2) heads namely, back wages and compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Back wages 46. Back wages is calculated based on the Claimant's last drawn salary but limited to 24 months. See Court practice Note 1 of 1987. From the back wages, the court is required to make a deduction for any contributory conduct; post dismissal earnings 7and delay in the hearing of the case but such a deduction need not involve a mathematical calculation. See Dr James Alfred (Sabah) v Koperasi Serbaguna Sanya Sdn Bhd (Sabah) & Anor (2001) 3 CLJ 541. a. Contributory Factor The Claimant's acts of misconduct detailed in the charge against him cannot be denied. Hence, under this item, | make a deduction of 70%. b. Delay From an examination of the notes of proceedings, | noticed that the Claimant did not occasion any delay in connection with the hearing of this ministerial reference. Hence, there is also no deduction down under this head. ¢. Gainful employment At the time of dismissal, the Claimant's last drawn salary was RM8,653.00. No evidence was adduced that he was in gainful employment after he was terminated from service. Thus | therefore make no deduction under this head. Accordingly, | hereby hand down to the Claimant a monetary award in the total sum of RM88,260.60, in lieu of reinstatement, which is arrived as follows: (i) Back wages for 24 months based on his last drawn salary of in the sum of RM207,672.00 minus 70% for misconduct = RM62,301.60. (ii) Compensation in lieu of reinstatement for 3 years of service (from 3.5.2010 - 5.8.2013) at the rate 1 month salary for each completed year of service = RM25,959.00.47. It is further ordered that the Company shall pay the total amount of RM88,260.60 through the office of Malaysian Trades Union Congress within 30 days from the date of this award subject to statutory deductions if any and the said office of Malaysian Trades Union Congress shall accordingly undertake to pay the same to the Claimant. jh HANDED DOWN AND DATED THIS DAY \3"" OF JUNE 2017. INCAN BIN SIKODOL ) CHAIRMAN INDUSTRIAL COURT MALAYSIA. JOHOR