Introduction
The Industrial Court upheld the dismissal of two technicians who submitted falsified accommodation receipts for business trips, re-affirming that dishonesty strikes at the heart of the employment relationship.
Brief facts
The former employees were technicians who were deployed together on the same outstation business trips throughout the month of September 2022. Sometime in or about October 2022, the Companies discovered that they had submitted falsified accommodation receipts for those business trips.
In Murali a/l Letchumanan v Titi Maju Sdn Bhd1, the charges levelled against the former employee relate to two outstation trips in Malacca, one in Johor Bahru and one in Seremban whereas in Nordin Bin Wahab v Antah Schindler Sdn Bhd2, the same charges were levelled against the former employee save for the Seremban trip. An additional charge levelled against the former employees relates to their failure to submit the original receipts of the hotel claims.
Based on the receipts submitted for the Malacca business trip, the name of the hotel was stated as 118 Hotel Metro. Pursuant to checks (which included going to the location of the address stated in the receipts as well as confirming with the owner of the hotel), the Companies found that the hotel at the address stated in the receipts is named “Good2Stay Hotel”, not 118 Hotel Metro. In fact, none of the 118 Hotel branches were in Malacca.
As for the Johor Bahru business trip, pursuant to the Companies’ enquiries with Hotel Time’s staff, the staff confirmed that the receipts submitted by the former employees were different from the hotel’s room rates and that none of them issued those receipts. In addition, the Companies noted that Hotel Time issues its receipts manually rather than the printed ones submitted by the former employees.
In relation to the Seremban business trip claim submitted by Murali a/l Letchumanan, the Companies found that he used Hotel Time’s template to falsify the claim for Rivero Boutique Hotel (Seremban) and that the hotel rate was different. Further, it was observed that he submitted the claim despite not staying at the hotel.
The former employees provided their respective explanations, which the Companies found unsatisfactory. The Companies convened domestic inquiries to enquire into the matter. The panel of inquiry deliberated on the matter and found the former employees guilty of the charges of misconduct levelled against them. The Companies then terminated the former employees’ employment.
Industrial Court decision
The Industrial Court found that the former employees merely denied the falsification and insisted that the accommodation receipts submitted were genuine, without producing any corroborative evidence. In this connection, the Industrial Court ruled that the burden was on the former employees to prove that the receipts were genuine having regard to clear evidence that the receipts do not appear to be genuine.
The Industrial Court stated that it was incumbent on the former employees to call the hotel staff as their witnesses to prove that the receipts were genuinely issued. Here, the former employees failed to do so and failed to produce the originals of the accommodation receipts.
The Industrial Court viewed such misconduct as not mere procedural lapses but calculated efforts to obtain reimbursements through fraudulent means. The Industrial Court re-affirmed the fact that an employer has processed and/or approved the false claim does not in any way detract from the fact that the employee has submitted or attempted to submit the false claim to the employer in the first place.
The Industrial Court further ruled that long years of service did not immunise an employee from dismissal and that what is pertinent to consider is the gravity of the former employees’ misconduct to determine whether dismissal was warranted. Accordingly, the Industrial Court concluded that the dismissal of the former employees was proportionate to the misconduct committed by them.
Conclusion
The Industrial Court’s decision underscores the importance of submitting genuine, truthful claims, and reinforces the principle that honesty and integrity remain the bedrock of the employer-employee relationship.
The two companies were represented by N Sivabalah (Consultant), Jamie Goh (Partner), and Peter H Santiago (Associate) from the Firm’s Employment & Industrial Relations Practice Area.
For further information, please contact:
Jamie Goh, Partner, Shearn Delamore & Co
jamie.goh@shearndelamore.com
Footnotes:
- Award No 1253 of 2025.
- Award No 64 of 2026.
