1) The document discusses an industrial court case involving the dismissal of 6 employees by Robin Resources (M) Sdn Bhd. 2) The employees were caught gambling inside a locked packing cabin on company premises during work hours by the company superintendent. 3) A domestic inquiry was held and found the employees guilty of misconduct. They were dismissed on February 16, 2007. 4) The court found the dismissal was justified as the company had reasonable grounds to believe the employees committed the offense based on evidence presented.

1. • MUHAMAD SYAKIRIN BIN TAJUL ANUAR
• 2011881526
• ABM2235C

2. INDUSTRIAL COURT OF
MALAYSIA
ENCIK AHMAD ZAMRI BIN ABDUL RAHMAN AND 5 OTHERS
AND
ROBIN RESOURCES (M) SDN BHD
AWARD NO: 296 OF 2011

3. REFERENCES
• Section 20 (3) of the Industrial Relations Act
1967 by the Honourable Minister of Human
Resources.
• The dismissal regarding of Encik Ahmad Zamri
Bin Abdul Rahman and 5 others (the
Claimants)
• Robin Resources (M) Sdn Bhd (the
Respondents)

4. AWARD
• The dismissal of Encik Ahmad Zamri Bin Abdul
Rahman and 5 others by the Robin Resources
(M) Sdn Bhd on the 16th February 2007.

5. • The six claimants who are employed by the
Company:
– Ahmad Zamri Bin Abdul Rahman, Assistant Supervisor
– Khairul Anuwar Bin Abdullah, Q.A Inspector
– Mohd Hasnawi Bin Tumin, Sticker Making Operator
– Mohd Ramzi Bin Md Ali, Packing Operator
– Murugan a/l Suparamaniam, General Worker
– Saiful Adli Bin Idris, Packing Operator

6. • On 3rd February 2007 at about 3.40 am, all the six
Claimants were caught by the Company’s
Superintendent while they were gambling inside
a Locked Packing Cabin located on the Company’s
premises.
• Claimants have committed the following
misconduct:
- caught gambling inside the Locked
‘Cabin Packing’ of the Factory premises.
- Claimants not at their place during their
working hours.
• Serious misconducts and lead to punishment of
dismissal.

7. • The company issued a notice to show cause and
notice of Domestic Inquiry to all the Claimants.
• The Claimants replied to the Show Cause Letter –
Unsatisfactory and unacceptable explaination.
• A Domestic Inquiry was held and all the Claimants
attended and participated.
• Panel of DI found all the Claimants guilty on the
charges preferred against them.
• By letter 16th February 2007, Company notified
them that they found guilty for the charges and
their services were terminated with immediate
effect.

8. • All the Claimants have been dismissed, the
only issue before the Court is whether their
dismissal was with or without just cause or
excuse.

9. THE ISSUES
• 1) The Claimants stated Panel of the Domestic
Inquiry to only make a finding of fact has
overstepped - recommendation of the Panel
that the Claimants be dismissed.
• 2) The outright dismissal was wrong in law as
it was based on circumstantial evidence and
on the statement of one individual only.

10. THE FIRST ISSUES
Taiko Plantations Sdn. Bhd, Negeri Sembilan v
Rajendran a/l Raman Nair & Anor (1994)
(Award 234 of 1994)
• When offence is criminal in nature, the
employer shouldn’t wait for the outcome of
the criminal proceeding against the employee
before enquiring into misconduct.

11. Ferodo Ltd v Barnes (1976) IRL R 39
• Dismissal of employees based on criminal
conduct, the employee need only to satisfy
himself at the time of the dismissal there were
reasonable grounds for believing that the
offence put against the employee were
committed.

12. Present case
• Whether the Company in deciding to dismiss
the Claimants acted reasonably in the sense
that the Company had reasonable grounds for
believing that the Claimants committed the
act of attempted gambling.

13. SECOND ISSUES
• The court will consider all relevant evidence
adduced before it at the trial of the case.
• Important to note that Claimants did not
disputes the validity of DI notes.
• After perusal the notes of DI, Court found that
DI was properly carried out and documented
and all the Claimants have given ample
opportunity to cross-examine the Company
Witnesses.

14. • The Claimants was employed by the Company
for a period of 8 years and expected to be
familiar with the Company’s policy against
gambling and or playing cards.
• Regulation 3(e) of the Company’s General
Rules and Regulations of Employment
Construes-gambling or Card Playing in any
form within the Company’s premises at any
time whether for money or not as misconduct.

15. • The Company’s Superintendent (COW-1) later
submitted a written report after caught the
Claimants together with the photographic
evidence.
• COW-1 took the photo after he entered into
the Packing Cabin.
• The Claimants did not argues with the
authenticity of the photograph.

16. THE RESULT
• There is no reasons why the Court not accept the
direct evidence of COW-1 and the photographic
evidence which took by the COW-1.
• Court hold that the Company has discharges its
burden of proving the misconduct alleged against
the Claimants.
• The Claimant’s claim that they had been
dismissed without just cause or excuse is hereby
dismissed.