Legal Framework †Employement Act Essay

The confederation complained that Encik Pokoks application for take off was only received by Encik Bunga on the 26th November 1996. The choke application was non approved be grounds it was non following the comp both procedure and secondly, probable excuse was not maintainn. Encik Pokok was dismissed without home(a) doubt done with(p). Encik Pokok claimed that he had submitted his start out application on the twenty-third November 1996. His application was pass to his shoplifter to be given to his supervisor, Encik Daun.He assumed that his thrust application was authorized. Encik Pokok said that he went to the Pejabat Kadi on the 23rd November 1996 to settle his sister in laws model and the attached cardinal geezerhood, to celebrate their engagement. For the 26th November 1996, he claimed he went to the labour office in Temerloh with his friend. Due to fatigue, he did not go to do. He do a literal leave application to the comp all finished one of the bon tons officers who was for sale at that time. Encik Pokok claimed that he was unlawfully confinesinated.He complained that internal inquiry had to be done prior to his finis be hunting expedition it violates Section 14 of the duty stage 1955 and Item 35 of the joint symmetry. Power to make awards 35. (1) A solicit shall mother power in relation to a trade animosity of which it has cognizance to make an award (including an lag award) relating to all or any of the industrial matters in dispute. (1A) A Court shall not consider a dispute relating to the release of an employee or make an award relating to the rein parameter of an employee pull in circumstances arising out of a contravention of section 82. 2) Notwithstanding subdivision (1A), where an employee considers that he has been dismissed without just get or excuse by his employer, in circumstances other than those arising out of a contravention of section 82, he may, at bottom one month of much(prenominal)(prenominal) venting, make, through his trade detectt and soul, representations in theme to the minister of religion to be reinstated in his precedent work (3) The curate may, before fashioning finish on any such representations, by writing on a lower floor his hand pass the Commissioner to inquire into the sacque and report whether in his opinion the going is without just cause or excuse instated in his former employment.(4) The curate, if he decides to deal with the representations himself, shall before making a decision thereon give an opportunity to the employer to make representations in writing as to the reasons why he conside cherry-red the dismissal of the employee to be justified. 5) If, after considering the representations of the trade union and of the employer (if any) and any report made by the Commissioner nether subsection (3), the Minister is commodious that the employee has been dismissed without just cause or excuse he may, notwithstanding any rule of law or agr eement to the contrary (a) direct the employer to reinstate the employee in his former employment and to pay the employee an fare that is equivalent to the wages that the employee would have pull in had he not been dismissed by the employer or (b) direct the employer to pay such amount of wages as payment as may be dogged by the Minister. 5A) The employer shall comply with the direction of the Minister low subsection (5). (6) The decision of the Minister on any representations made beneath this section shall be final and conclusive and shall not be challenged in any lawcourt or in a Court established under this Act. 7) every direction by the Minister under subsection (5) shall operate as a bar to any action for alter by the employee in any court in respect of the wrongful dismissal (8) An employer who fails to comply with the direction of the Minister under subsection (5) shall be guilty of an law-breaking and shall be liable on article of faith by a District Court to a fine not particular(a) $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both. 9) Where an amount to be paid under subsection (5) is not paid in accordance with the direction of the Minister and the employer has been convicted of an criminal law-breaking under subsection (8), the amount, or so much thereof as rest unpaid, shall be recoverable by a District Court as if it were a fine and the amount so healed shall be paid to the employee entitled under the direction. AnswerAs the lay outing lawyer, the order did not make a counteract decision in terminating Encik Pokok. The reason is because Encik Pokok has try to pronounce the margin caller-up by submitting the leave application form to Encik Daud through his friend on 23rd Nov 1996. Encik Pokok likewise made a verbal application for leave on the 26th November 1996 through a company official on certificate of indebtedness at that time. This would mean that technically he was not absent for to a greater extent than two consecutive days.Therefore According to calling Act 1955, section 15(2), An employee shall be deemed to have broken his stuff of service with the employer if he has been continuously absent from work for more than two consecutive working days without prior leave from his employer, unless he has a reasonable excuse for such absence seizure and has informed or attempted to inform his employer of such excuse prior to or at the earliest opportunity during such absence. The Company also failed to bestow a domestic inquiry to give Encik Pokok a chance to defend himself and offer reasonable excuse why he failed to mould up for work.Therefore Section 14(1) of the work Act applies. According to Employment Act 1955 section 14(1), An employer may, on the grounds of mess up at odds(predicate) with the fulfillment of the express or implied condition of his service, after a repayable inquiry (a) Dismiss without notice the employee normal absenteeism (of less than two da ys at a time but on a frequent basis) would be outlined as unauthorized absence from work on a certain growth forth of days per month over a 6 month period. Initially informs would be given, but if the absence persists, the employee may heart dismissal.The failure to be punctual would be treated the same way as habitual absenteeism. In this case, the company failed to intend whether Encik Pokok is a habitual absentee by not producing historical records of his escortance. However reported cases institute that a breach of contract and termination are dealt as separate issues. As such a breach of contract may not lead to an robotic termination of employment. The consequence of such a breach would depend on the conditions of employment. oddment Encik Pokok was a victim of wrongful dismissal and the company must reinstate him immediately.The company has the right to issue written warning for the 24th and 25th November 1996 for unauthorized leave. headspring 3 (b) You are defend ing lawyer for the Company. Has the Company made a refuse decision in terminating Mr. Good . cover? Case features Mr. Good was charged with dormancy while on duty on 12th June 1997 at 7. 30pm in the music room at Tan Sri William Chengs house in Petaling Jaya. Mr. Good was instructed Vide a letter on 17th June 1997 to attend an inquiry on 20th June 1997 to hear the charge. Mr. Good says that he had been dismissed without out-of-pocket inquire.He denied that he had committed the criminal offense alleged of and argued that the company had merely acted on suspicion. Answer Company did not make a correct decision. This is collectible to the fact that Mr. Good was not caught sleeping red handed and Mr. Bad and Miss sexys allegations were only implied. There were really no eye witnesses. The court may conclude as it is only allegation as there is no reason of Mr. Good committing the move, as such the Company even failed to 1) The Company did not conduct a domestic inquiry.The c ompany should call for domestic inquire as it is an internal inquiry into some alleged bollix up by an employee. The main objectives of the domestic inquiry are to establish whether the alleged bollix is proven or not and if the misconduct is proven, to recommend a punishment that is catch to the offence committed. The complainant is normally the attention of the company but sometimes, can also be the victim of the alleged misconduct. At the domestic inquiry, the employer will present its case and the employee is given an equal opportunity to defend himself against the charges of misconduct.Under Employment Act 1955 Section14 (1) where an employer may on the grounds of misconduct inconsistent with the fulfillment of the express of implied conditions of his service, after due inquiry 2) Absence of show cause letter or letter of disciplinary, As to Mr. Bad and Ms. Sexys statement on Mr. Good was caught committing the same offence 3 years ago, there were no records as the company did not issue any show cause letter or letter of disciplinary action. proof The Company did not follow the neat dismissal procedures in accordance to Employment Act 1955, which relates to misconduct.