In Vikneshwaran a/l Tathan v Sime Darby Plantation Berhad [Award No. 434 of 2026], the Industrial Court dealt with a tractor driver caught attempting to remove company property for personal gain. This case examines whether an employee’s long tenure can protect them from dismissal after committing a serious act of dishonesty.
Brief Facts
- The Claimant was employed as a General Worker performing the duties of a Tractor Driver for approximately 15 years.
- During a routine patrol, an auxiliary police officer spotted the Claimant at a trench border between the Company’s land and a third-party plantation.
- Upon investigation, four bags of loose oil palm fruits belonging to the Company were found hidden under palm fronds in the adjacent plantation.
- When questioned, the Claimant admitted to taking the fruits and subsequently performed a re-enactment of how he moved the bags across a wooden bridge.
- The Company issued a show cause letter and conducted a Domestic Inquiry where the Claimant pleaded guilty to the charges of unauthorized removal of property and failure to follow instructions.
- Despite his admission, the Claimant later challenged his dismissal, arguing that he had limited comprehension of the Malay language during the inquiry and that his financial difficulties drove his actions.
Court’s Findings
The Industrial Court found that the Company proved the misconduct on a balance of probabilities. The Claimant was found in an area where he had no work-related reason to be, and his immediate flight upon being spotted, pointed to him being engaged in unauthorised conduct. His subsequent admission and re-enactment further solidified the Company’s case.
The Court emphasized that the relationship between an employer and an employee is fiduciary, built on trust and confidence. By attempting to steal company property, the Claimant committed a fundamental breach of this relationship. The Court ruled that such conduct justifies immediate dismissal because it destroys the core of the employment contract.
Crucially, long service does not provide a “license” to commit misconduct. Even with 15 years of unblemished service, the gravity of the theft justified the termination. The Court held that the Company could no longer repose trust in the Claimant, making the dismissal a proportionate response.
The Court also dismissed the Claimant’s argument regarding language barriers as a mere afterthought. Evidence showed the Claimant was a Malaysian citizen educated up to Form 4 who used Malay daily at work for 15 years. He had even written a housing request letter to the Company in Malay after his termination, which contradicted his claim of limited comprehension.
Key Takeaways
Employers should ensure that disciplinary proceedings are documented meticulously, including any admissions made by the employee. As seen in this case, a clear record of a guilty plea and a re-enactment can make it difficult for an employee to later retract their confession or claim they did not understand the proceedings.
Arguments raised after the fact, such as alleged language barriers, will be carefully scrutinised by the Court. Where the surrounding evidence shows that an employee has been able to communicate and work in a particular language for many years, the Court is unlikely to accept a belated claim that the employee did not understand the proceedings. Employers should nevertheless ensure that charges and inquiry proceedings are explained clearly to the employee in a language they reasonably understand.
This decision also reaffirms that theft is a serious misconduct that strikes at the heart of the employment relationship. Businesses are not required to prove a criminal standard of theft but only that the property was removed without authority, and with dishonest intent.
The length of an employee’s service, while a factor in mitigation, cannot outweigh a proven act of dishonesty that destroys the fiduciary bond between the parties.
***
This article was written by Donovan Cheah (Partner) from Donovan & Ho’s employment law practice.
Donovan & Ho is a law firm in Malaysia, and our employment practice group has built a reputation for providing strategic employment advice to local and global organisations. Our team of employment lawyers provide advice on employment law and industrial relations including review of employment contracts, policies and handbooks, advising on workforce reductions, and managing dismissals of employees for poor performance or misconduct. We also represent clients in unfair dismissal claims and employment-related litigation.
Have a question? Please contact us.
