Malaysia Airports Sdn Bhd v Muhd Irfan Sani Bin Rashid
Catchwords
Conclusion The Company failed to explore other disciplinary options that would have been suitable for the misconduct displayed by the Respondent. These alternatives could have included measures such as suspension without pay, a reduction in salary, or even demotion. As a result of this oversight, the dismissal of the Respondent cannot be considered to have just cause or proper justification. This Court finds that the company has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Claimant was dismissed from his job or employment with just cause or excuse. Therefore: (1) the Claimant appeal is allowed in part where the deduction to back wages due to contributory conduct of 10% ordered in the Industrial Court's Award No. 188 of 2025 is increased to 30%; and; (2) No order as to costs.
Practice Areas
Conclusion The Company failed to explore other disciplinary options that would have been suitable for the misconduct displayed by the Respondent. These alternatives could have included measures such as suspension without pay, a reduction in salary, or even demotion. As a result of this oversight, the dismissal of the Respondent cannot be considered to have just cause or proper justification. This Court finds that the company has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Claimant was dismissed from his job or employment with just cause or excuse. Therefore: (1) the Claimant appeal is allowed in part where the deduction to back wages due to contributory conduct of 10% ordered in the Industrial Court's Award No. 188 of 2025 is increased to 30%; and; (2) No order as to costs.
Judges (1)
Case Significance
Malaysia Airports Sdn Bhd v Muhd Irfan Sani Bin Rashid is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated June 11, 2025 (citation: pa-16a-7-02-2025). The case was decided by Azizan bin Md. Arshad.
What was the outcome of Malaysia Airports Sdn Bhd v Muhd Irfan Sani Bin Rashid?
Malaysia Airports Sdn Bhd v Muhd Irfan Sani Bin Rashid is a High Court decision dated June 11, 2025. The case was heard by Azizan bin Md. Arshad. See the full judgment for details.