FLASH MALAYSIA EXPRESS SDN BHD v MUHAMAD FIRDAUS BIN AZMI

Case Significance

Confirms that the due-inquiry requirement under section 14 of the Employment Act 1955 does not oblige an employer to hold a domestic inquiry where the workman pleads guilty to a charge amounting to misconduct, and that habitual lateness, especially despite flexible hours, is a valid ground for dismissal.

This High Court decision at Muar is an appeal under section 77 of the Employment Act 1955 against a Labour Court award, and it addresses whether a domestic inquiry must still be held where the workman has pleaded guilty to a charge amounting to misconduct. The respondent had been employed by the appellant, Flash Malaysia Express Sdn Bhd, as a branch supervisor. He was issued a show-cause letter setting out three charges: two of dishonesty and misuse of company property (relating to a "shell card") and a third of habitual late coming to, or early leaving from, work. The respondent denied the first two charges but pleaded guilty to the third. The employer accordingly did not proceed with the first two charges and dismissed him for misconduct on the basis of his admission to the third. The Labour Court, treating all three charges as misconduct and relying on the word "due inquiry" in section 14 of the Employment Act 1955 and on Said Dharmalingam Abdullah v Malayan Breweries, held that a domestic inquiry had to be established for all three charges even though the respondent had pleaded guilty to the third, and awarded him wages in lieu of notice and termination benefits. On appeal, the court held that the requirement of a due inquiry in Said Dharmalingam applies where the workman denies the charges, not where he pleads guilty to a charge amounting to misconduct; where guilt is admitted, an inquiry would be an empty formality, as recognised in Petroleum Nasional Bhd v Mohd Radzuan Ramli and Central Bank of India v Karumary Bannerjee. It further held that habitual late coming is a good ground for dismissal, particularly where the employer had allowed flexible hours yet the respondent still failed to attend punctually, so the employer was entitled to take disciplinary action to run its business efficiently. Finding that the Labour Court had erred in law and fact, the court allowed the appeal with no order as to costs.