Our Partner, Thavaselvi Pararajasingam, together with Senior Associate, Sareeka Balakrishnan, successfully represented RHB Bank Berhad in resisting an appeal before the High Court of Kuala Lumpur.
The appeal arose from Industrial Court Award No. 1654 of 2024, which upheld the dismissal of a former bank manager for misconduct involving the theft of company property, namely a Philips pressure cooker.
The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Industrial Court’s Award, reiterating several important principles of industrial jurisprudence and appellate practice:
- Strict Standard for Appellate Intervention: The High Court reaffirmed that the threshold for appellate intervention is a stringent one. Findings of fact are generally left to the trial judge, who has had the benefit of hearing and assessing the oral evidence firsthand. Such findings should only be disturbed where there has been an insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence before the court.
- Allegations of Bias and Recusal Found to be “Scandalous”: The Appellant’s primary ground of appeal was that the Chairman of the Industrial Court was biased. The High Court observed that the allegations made were serious and scandalous in nature and found that the recusal application, as well as the allegation concerning the deletion of a video recording, were unfounded and baseless.
- Absence of a Domestic Inquiry is not Fatal: The High Court held that the absence of a domestic inquiry was not fatal to the dismissal and did not occasion any prejudice to the Appellant, given the well-established principle that proceedings before the Industrial Court are heard de novo.
- Evaluation of the Evidence: The High Court noted that the Industrial Court had properly considered the Appellant’s explanation regarding the box he was carrying at the material time and had sufficiently appreciated the distinction in the size of the box. The Court further noted that CCTV footage spanning the period from 9 October 2020 to 5 November 2020 did not show any other individual carrying an item remotely resembling the size of the missing pressure cooker box. This undermined the Appellant’s contention that no investigation had been conducted in respect of another individual who had been identified as a possible suspect.
- Discharge of the Burden of Proof: The High Court concluded that the Industrial Court had reached its findings following a proper evaluation of the evidence. Accordingly, the Bank had discharged its burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant’s dismissal was with just cause and excuse.
This decision serves as a timely reminder that appellate intervention in Industrial Court matters remains exceptional and underscores the importance of objective evidence and careful fact-finding in misconduct cases.
