Goon Kwee Phoy V. J & P Case Study
For this case, the court has refer to the case of Goon Kwee Phoy v. J & P (M) Bhd where the authority to give reason on employee’s dismissal is on employer. However, in this case there’s no proper charge against the Claimant. Then, the company concluded that the claimant had misused her position, because of that she was dismissed from the company. The first allegation is the absenteeism and poor attendance. The court then referred to Claimant’s Bundle of Documents (CLB) which is the copy of company calculation of the claimant’s salary. The Claimant questioned Ms Premalatha (the HR and Admin Executive) who the one that prepared it. There is an issued that the company already plan to terminate her before DI and termination letter issued on 31
…show more content…
The Claimant explained that she did not delete before send it back the laptop to company because she forgot. In court opinion, this is not relevant. So, the court is reminded of the provision of Section 30 (5) of Industrial Act that the court must consider the merits of the case without regard to technicalities and legal form. Thus, the court already considers that the company had fail to proved that the Claimant use company equipment for her personal work.
The Claimant then got a dismissal without cause or excuse because the entire allegation against her from company cannot be proved and unacceptable by the court. The court also found that the company already know what the Claimant did and about her uncle that is the contractor. Other than that, the court express that the company was failed to call a few witnesses (Miss Jenny, Miss Asiah and Miss Cally) with regard the allegation towards the Claimant about the contractor who is her uncle and the tenancy agreement. The company kept them away from DI and it not fair to the …show more content…
She should received her paid including during her maternity leave. The Claimant should get two months of her last drawn salary for the maternity allowance which is necessary as compensation under Section 30(6) of Industrial Act and Section 44A of EA. Furthermore, the claimant also gets a relief of payment of back wages equivalent to 6 months of her last drawn of salary for the period of the time that she was unemployed. The calculation is according to table
The Claimant explained that she did not delete before send it back the laptop to company because she forgot. In court opinion, this is not relevant. So, the court is reminded of the provision of Section 30 (5) of Industrial Act that the court must consider the merits of the case without regard to technicalities and legal form. Thus, the court already considers that the company had fail to proved that the Claimant use company equipment for her personal work.
The Claimant then got a dismissal without cause or excuse because the entire allegation against her from company cannot be proved and unacceptable by the court. The court also found that the company already know what the Claimant did and about her uncle that is the contractor. Other than that, the court express that the company was failed to call a few witnesses (Miss Jenny, Miss Asiah and Miss Cally) with regard the allegation towards the Claimant about the contractor who is her uncle and the tenancy agreement. The company kept them away from DI and it not fair to the …show more content…
She should received her paid including during her maternity leave. The Claimant should get two months of her last drawn salary for the maternity allowance which is necessary as compensation under Section 30(6) of Industrial Act and Section 44A of EA. Furthermore, the claimant also gets a relief of payment of back wages equivalent to 6 months of her last drawn of salary for the period of the time that she was unemployed. The calculation is according to table