Employment and Industrial Relations Update: Too Late to Deny — Industrial Court Upholds Dismissal and Rejects "Did Not Understand" Defence after Clear Admissions

Introduction

The Industrial Court upheld the dismissal of a long-serving employee who was found to have attempted to remove Company’s property without authorisation, reaffirming that such conduct amounts to a serious breach of trust warranting dismissal. Importantly, the Court rejected the employee’s attempt to claim he did not understand the charges or the language used during the Domestic Inquiry proceedings, concluding that his admission of guilt and subsequent attempt to withdraw it was an afterthought.

Material facts

In the case of Vikneshwaran A/L Tathan v Sime Darby Plantation Berhad¹ (presently known as SD Guthrie Berhad) , the Claimant commenced employment with the Company as a General Worker in November 2008. At the material time, the Claimant was assigned the role of a tractor driver, responsible to collect bagged loose fruits from designated blocks and thereafter transport it to the collection bin.

On the material day, during a routine patrol at the estate area, an Auxiliary Police officer spotted the Claimant at the trench border along an unfenced boundary between one of the Company’s blocks and a neighbouring third-party plantation, a location where the Claimant was not required to be at. Upon noticing the Auxiliary Police officer, the Claimant fled the scene. The Estate Manager and Field Officer were subsequently alerted, and a preliminary inspection was carried out. Four bags of loose fruits were discovered outside the Company’s land within the neighbouring third-party plantation. The bags were same with those used by the Company.

The Claimant was immediately called to the scene and questioned regarding the incident, during which he stated, inter alia, “saya sikit juga ambil” and “empat saja”. The Claimant was also requested to re-enact the incident, which demonstrated the manner in which he was able to remove the bags, each weighing approximately 25 to 40 kilograms, from the Company’s premises and thereafter transport it across a wooden bridge to the neighbouring plantation.

Following the completion of the investigation, the Claimant was issued a Show Cause Letter containing three charges, namely: (i) removal of the Company’s property without approval; (ii) failure to perform his duties by transporting the loose fruits to the collection bin; and (iii) threatening another worker. However, in his reply, the Claimant failed to address the 1st and 2nd allegations of misconduct and denied the 3rd charge, which led to a Domestic Inquiry.

The Claimant attended the Domestic Inquiry accompanied by estate representatives from the National Union of Plantation Workers. At the outset, the Claimant pleaded guilty to the 1st and 2nd charges as set out in the Notice of Domestic Inquiry. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Claimant advanced mitigation, citing, among others, family issues, financial difficulties arising from illegal money lenders, insufficient salary to repay such debts and his children’s ill health, as well as asserting that the misconduct had only been committed for two days.

The panel found the Claimant guilty of the 1st and 2nd charges and extended its findings to Management, which subsequently terminated the Claimant’s employment with immediate effect.

The Claimant’s arguments

The Claimant contended that, notwithstanding the Domestic Inquiry, the Industrial Court ought to hear the matter de novo, that is, afresh. The Claimant contended that, due to his low level of education (up to Form 4), he was unable to fully understand the Malay language (Bahasa Melayu). In the absence of a Tamil interpreter during the Domestic Inquiry, the Claimant alleged that he could not properly comprehend the proceedings or the contents thereof.

In respect of the 1st charge, the Claimant also relied heavily on the alleged absence of direct eyewitness evidence, contending that no documentary evidence, including photographs or videos, was produced to establish the misconduct.

Industrial Court’s decision

The Court rejected the Claimant’s principal contention that his admission of guilt was due to his limited comprehension of the Malay language, for the following reasons:

Selective denial in the response to Show Cause Letter: The Claimant’s response demonstrated that he understood the nature and substance of the charges, as he selectively addressed the 3rd charge while remaining silent on the 1st and 2nd charges. This reflected a conscious decision not to dispute the latter, particularly in light of his subsequent mitigation.
Conduct during the Domestic Inquiry: The Claimant was informed that the proceedings would be conducted in Malay but raised no objection and did not request the assistance of an interpreter. Despite being accompanied by union representatives throughout, no request for clarification was made. Instead, the Claimant proceeded to plead guilty to the first two charges and even advanced mitigation in Malay in seeking leniency.
Background and experience: As a Malaysian who had received secondary education up to Form 4 and had used the Malay language in daily work communications for nearly 15 years, it was implausible for the Claimant to assert that he did not understand Malay.

The Court also highlighted the fact that the Claimant had written to the Company after his termination to request to remain in the Company’s housing accommodation, which letter was entirely drafted in Malay. In light of the foregoing, the Court was in agreement with the Company that the Claimant’s contention of inability to comprehend Malay was untenable. The Court further agreed that the Claimant’s denial during the hearing before the Industrial Court was clearly an afterthought after his earlier admission during the inquiry.

Notwithstanding the Claimant’s admissions, the Court also considered the corroborative testimony of the Company’s witnesses. The Claimant’s presence at a location where he had no work-related reason to be, coupled with his immediate departure upon being spotted and his admission at the material time, established the 1st charge. The Court also found the Claimant guilty of the 2nd charge, as he had failed to carry out his assigned duties on the material day.

The Court ultimately held that the misconduct was sufficiently serious to justify dismissal, notwithstanding the Claimant’s length of service in excess of 10 years, given the clear breach of trust and lack of fidelity.

Key takeaways

Ensure an employee understands the charges against him during disciplinary proceedings.

Employers should therefore ensure that employees are clearly informed of the charges against them in the language utilised in day-to-day conduct of affairs before any admission is recorded and disciplinary action is taken.

This case also reinforces the importance of trust in the employment relationship. Dismissal may be justified irrespective of the value or quantity of the items, even where the employee has long service as trust and integrity is the foundation of an employment relationship.

Footnote:

Award No.: 434 of 2026.

COPYRIGHT © 2026 SHEARN DELAMORE & CO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
THIS UPDATE IS ISSUED FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE CLIENTS OF THE FIRM AND COVERS LEGAL ISSUES IN A GENERAL WAY.
THE CONTENTS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE ANY ADVICE ON ANY SPECIFIC MATTER AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR DETAILED LEGAL ADVICE ON SPECIFIC MATTERS OR TRANSACTIONS.

Back to Alerts