Paint company’s senior executive wrongly accused of theft, gets job back

 Court of Appeal says the Industrial Court was entitled to probe whether the employee was dishonest since the company had made it a central allegation.

The Court of Appeal ordered Kansai Paint Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd to pay Lee Ee Chai RM267,030 in back wages and RM40,000 in costs after ruling he was unfairly dismissed from employment.

PUTRAJAYA:

 The Court of Appeal has ordered the reinstatement of a senior executive wrongly accused of theft, restoring the Industrial Court’s ruling that he was unfairly dismissed from employment.

Justice Evrol Mariette Peters, delivering the unanimous judgment of a three-member bench, said the High Court erred in law and principle when interfering with the Industrial Court’s award.

“The order of the High Court is set aside, and the award of the Industrial Court is restored,” she said in broad grounds delivered when allowing Lee Ee Chai’s final appeal two weeks ago.

The panel, chaired by Justice Azizul Azmi Adnan and also comprising Justice Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin, also awarded Lee RM40,000 in costs.

The Industrial Court had ordered Lee’s reinstatement to his last-held position at Kansai Paint Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd, with his employment to be deemed continuous from its starting date in 1984.

Court chairman Augustine Anthony also directed the employer to pay back wages of RM267,030, after deducting RM89,010 for contributory misconduct.

The dispute arose when the company vacated its Port Tech Tower office in Klang and moved operations to Bukit Raja.

Lee, tasked with accounting for departmental items, was found to have removed two chairs and two projectors.

He later explained that one projector had been placed at the Bukit Raja office. The remaining items were returned after inquiry.

He was accused of theft of company property, found guilty, and dismissed following a domestic inquiry.

Peters said the Industrial Court had properly analysed the evidence and context of the office move, concluding the company failed to prove dishonesty – the core element of theft.

The High Court overturned the ruling, saying the Industrial Court had misapplied the criminal law definition of theft to an employment misconduct charge.

However, the Court of Appeal disagreed.

Peters said the company itself had framed the case as wrongful appropriation, making dishonesty central to the allegation.

“In such circumstances, the Industrial Court was correct to examine whether the facts supported an allegation of such moral gravity,” she said.

She said the Industrial Court’s reference to the Penal Code was not to impose a criminal standard of proof but to articulate the elements of dishonesty and wrongful gain, directly relevant to the charge.

“This was not a misdirection, but a logical analysis of the substance of the accusation,” she said.

Peters said the Industrial Court’s conclusion that Lee’s conduct pointed more to poor judgment and irresponsible conduct, rather than to a dishonest intention to misappropriate, was one the tribunal was entitled to make on the evidence.

“An appellate court cannot overturn such a finding merely because it might have drawn a different inference,” she said.

She said the High Court’s approach to the case had improperly “reintroduced the very legalistic formalism that the Industrial Relations Act 1967 seeks to avoid”.

Peters said the Industrial Court’s finding that Lee’s contributory misconduct did not warrant dismissal from employment was “a classic exercise of arbitral discretion to ensure fairness – one the High Court ought not to have overridden”. - FMT