INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA NO. KES : 25(14)/4-1647/16 BETWEEN MOHD NORHAZLI BIN MOHAMED AZLANUDIN AND KOLEJ UNIVERSITI TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN AWARD NO. : 1142 OF 2019 Before Venue Date of Reference Date of Receipt of Order of Reference Dates of Mention Dates of Hearing Date of Claimant's Submission Date of Company's Submission Representation DATO" JALALDIN BIN HAJI HUSSAIN - CHAIRMAN Industrial Court Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 14.11.2016 20.11.2016 12.01.2017; 27.03.2017; 12.05.2017; 20.06.2017; 02.03.2018. 02.04.2018; 03.04.2018; 11.06.2018; 12.06.2018; 13.06.2018; 27.07.2018; 08.08.2018; 10.08.2018; 25.09.2018; 16.10.2018; 21.11.2018; 18.12.2018. 18.01.2019 (Claimant's Submission) 08.02.2019 (Claimant's Reply) 14.01.2019 (Company's Submission) 28.01.2019 (Company's Reply) LT KOL (R) Haji Mohd Akhir Haji Hamzah Senior Consultant Industrial Relations Malaysia Employers Federation (MEF) Counsel for the Company Mr. Mohammad Nasser bin Yusof & Mr. Mohamad Fauzi Messrs The Law Chambers of Fauzi Nasser Counsel for the ClaimantReference: This is an order of reference dated 14.11.2016 by the Honourable Minister of Human Resources pursuant to section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 arising out of the alleged dismissal of Mohd Norhazli bin Mohamed Azianudin (hereinafter called “the Claimant”) by Kolej Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (hereinafter called “the Company”) on 01.05.2016. The case was first mentioned in Court 14 of the Industrial Court Kuala Lumpur and transferred to this court vide a direction of the Learned President of the Industrial Court dated 28.03.2018. Hearing commenced on 02.04.2018 and was completed on 18.12.2018. thereafter the parties filed their submissions and submission in reply. AWARD Factual Matrix The Claimant was employed by the Company as of 01.06.2012 as a Lecturer (Salary Code LR 1). On 07.12.2016 the Company received a report from the Dean, Faculty of Social Science, Arts and Humanities (FSAH) that the Claimant had committed alleged misconduct as stated in the report. On 07.12.2015 the Company requested the Claimant to give a written explanation within 7 days. The Claimant replied on 10.12.2015. 2The Company found the Claimant's explanation unacceptable and by letter dated 06.04.2016 issued him with a Show Cause letter, The Claimant replied on 10.04.2016. The Claimant was subsequently issued with a notice dated 14.04.2016 requiring him to attend a Domestic Inquiry (DI) scheduled on 19.04.2016. The DI was rescheduled to 22.04.2016 at 9.00 am vide letter dated 18.04.2016. The Claimant attended the DI. By letter dated 29.04.2016, the Claimant was informed by the Company that. the DI panel had found him guilty of charges 1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. The Company vide letter dated 29.04.2016 CLB page 1 terminated the Claimant's employment with effect from 30.04.2016. The Claimant claims that his dismissal was without just cause and excuse. The Role and Function of this Court in Determining the Dispute between the Parties The role of the Industrial Court under section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 is succinctly explained in the case Milan Auto Sdn. Bhd. V Wong She Yen [1995] 4 CLI 449, his Lordship Justice Tan Sri Haji Mohd Azmi bin Kamaruddin FC] delivering the judgement of the Federal Court had the occasion to ‘state the following: -