伪造文件+非法申报并收取泳训费用指控, 认罪被解雇, 员工胜[2025]

案件基本事实与背景

1. 员工最初于2009年5月5日以合约制身份受聘于马来西亚国际伊斯兰大学简称 （IM），担任助理体育官一职。该合约于2010年6月30日届满。随后，自2010年7月1日起，员工获大学正式转为永久编制员工，并一直在同一岗位服务，直至2019年8月9日被解雇为止。
2. 换言之，员工在被解雇时，已经在大学服务整整十年，其中九年以上属于正式永久员工。这一点，在工业法庭衡量处分比例与合理性时，具有极为重要的法律分量。
3. 事件的导火线源于大学对体育发展中心泳训项目的内部审计。根据审计结果，校方于2019年4月17日向员工发出内部调查通知书（Domestic Inquiry Notice），共提出26项纪律指控。
4. 第一项指控涉及伪造文件。校方指称，员工涉嫌伪造一封来自 Al Kota Mas 学校的申请信，以继续在2018年进行泳训课程。其余第2至第26项指控，则涉及员工在2016年至2018年期间，涉嫌非法申报并收取泳训课程费用，而根据校方立场，这些费用应直接支付给泳训教练，而不应经由体育官个人账户。
5. 内部调查于2019年5月8日举行。在该次内部调查中，员工在当时的制度与认知下，对全部26项指控表示认罪。纪律委员会随后于2019年5月9日作出决定，对员工施以书面警告、冻结三年年度加薪，并辅以辅导措施。
6. 员工并未就“有罪裁决”提出上诉，而是仅针对处分过重的问题，于2019年5月13日向大学校长提出书面上诉，请求减轻处罚。然而，正是这一次上诉，成为本案法律争议的核心。
7. 2019年8月9日，大学校长不仅驳回员工的减刑请求，反而将原本的纪律处分全面撤销，并改判为即刻解雇。员工当日即收到解雇信，其永久雇佣关系随即终止。
8. 员工随后援引《1967年工业关系法令》第20条，向工业法庭提出不当解雇申诉。

员工主张及诉求

9. 员工在工业法庭上的核心法律立场，并非否认自己在内部调查中曾认罪，而是集中攻击大学在纪律上诉阶段的权力行使方式，已经严重违反工业法理与自然公正原则。
10. 员工明确指出，他向校长提出的上诉，仅限于请求减轻由纪律委员会所施加的处罚，而不是对“裁定有罪”本身提出挑战。因此，在合理预期之下，上诉结果只可能是维持原处分或减轻处分，而绝不应出现“因上诉而加重处罚”的结果。
11. 员工进一步强调，无论是其雇佣合约、大学宪章，抑或《2015年职员纪律规则》，均没有任何明文条文授权校长在员工上诉的情况下，加重原有处分。校长的做法不仅超越规则权限（ultra vires），更在制度上制造“寒蝉效应”，使员工不敢行使正当上诉权。
12. 在事实层面，员工也对第2至第26项指控提出关键性辩解。他指出，在2018年8月之前，大学并未实施“泳训费用必须直接支付给教练”的新制度。在此前的多年实践中，体育官代为申领并转付教练费用，属于既定行政惯例，而非违规行为。
13. 员工认为，自己在内部调查中的认罪，是基于错误理解制度变更时间点，在事实与法律前提均有误的情况下作出，不能据此合理化最严厉的解雇处分。
14. 基于上述理由，员工请求工业法庭裁定其遭受的不当解雇，并寻求复职或替代赔偿，包括复职替代赔偿金与追溯薪资（backwages）。

公司抗辩及理由

15. 大学方面则坚持，其作为雇主，拥有完整且合法的纪律处分权力。校方强调，员工面对的是极其严重的失信与诚信问题，尤其涉及伪造第三方文件以及不当金钱申领，这些行为已动摇雇佣关系的信任基础。
16. 大学主张，《IM 宪章》第46(9)条明确赋权校长，在审理员工上诉时，可以“以其认为公平与公正的方式作出任何决定”。在该条文下，校长不仅有权维持或减轻处分，也有权在认为原处分不足以反映过失严重性时，施以更严厉的惩罚，包括解雇。
17. 大学进一步指出，员工已在内部调查中亲自认罪，并在上诉信中再次承认相关行为，因此不存在事实争议。在大学立场看来，解雇决定完全符合自然公正原则，也符合管理层对诚信零容忍的立场。

法庭分析与判决

18. 工业法庭在判决中，首先重申其在《1967年工业关系法令》第20条下的双重职责，即：第一，审查雇主指控的行为是否成立；第二，判断即便行为成立，是否足以构成“正当理由或借口”以支持解雇。
19. 法庭明确指出，举证责任始终落在雇主一方，且证明标准为“盖然性衡量”，而非刑事案件的“排除合理怀疑”。
20. 在全面审查证据后，工业法庭作出一个对案件走向具有决定性意义的认定：第2至第26项有关泳训费用的指控，在法律与事实层面均不成立。
21. 法庭依据大学自身的内部审计报告确认，“直接付款给教练”的新制度仅在2018年8月才开始实施，而员工被指控的行为，全部发生在该制度生效之前。换言之，员工并未违反当时有效的行政程序。
22. 因此，法庭认为，员工在内部调查中对这些指控的认罪，属于在错误前提下作出的不利承认，不能作为支持解雇的正当基础。

法庭的详细论证与法律分析

23. 在处理最关键的法律争议时，工业法庭对“上诉是否可以加重处罚”作出明确否定。
24. 法庭指出，《2015年职员纪律规则》第31条使用的是“任何对处分不满的职员可提出上诉”的措辞。一个理性且合理的制度解读是，上诉机制的存在，旨在为员工提供救济，而不是制造更严重后果。
25. 法庭强调，如果允许在员工上诉后加重处罚，将直接破坏自然公正原则，使上诉权形同虚设。这种做法在工业法理上既不公平，也不合理。
26. 尽管校长拥有广泛裁量权，但该裁量权必须受“公平与公正”原则制约。法庭认定，本案中校长的决定明显逾越了制度授权范围，属于越权行为。

解雇程序是否合法

27. 工业法庭进一步指出，即便员工确实在第一项指控中存在不当行为，解雇仍须符合比例原则。
28. 法庭援引多项联邦法院与工业法庭判例，重申处分必须与过失程度、员工服务年资、整体背景相称。员工拥有十年服务记录，且此前无严重纪律处分，直接施以解雇，明显过于严厉。

法院判决及责任分摊

29. 在裁定解雇不当后，工业法庭认为复职已不切实际，因此改以金钱赔偿作为救济。
30. 法庭判给员工：

• 复职替代赔偿金，等同于10个月薪资，总额RM36,383.60 (RM3,638.36 x 10 (工作了满10年))；
• 追溯薪资15个月，总额RM54,575.40 (RM3,638.36 x 15 (赔偿15个月))；
• 合计赔偿金额为RM90,959.00 (RM36,383.60 + RM54,575.40)，须在30日内支付。

Background Facts and Chronology of Events

1. The Claimant, was first employed by the International University Malaysia (“the University” or “the Company”) on 5 May 2009 as an Assistant Sports Officer on a contractual basis. His initial contract expired on 30 June 2010. With effect from 1 July 2010, the Claimant was confirmed as a permanent employee of the University. He continued to serve in the same capacity until his dismissal on 9 August 2019.
2. At the time of dismissal, the Claimant had rendered approximately ten years of continuous service to the University, with more than nine years as a confirmed permanent staff member. This length of service was a material factor considered by the Industrial Court when assessing the proportionality and fairness of the disciplinary sanction imposed.
3. The disciplinary proceedings arose following an internal audit conducted by the University on swimming training programmes administered by the Centre for Sports Development. Based on the audit findings, the University issued a Domestic Inquiry notice dated 17 April 2019, charging the Claimant with a total of twenty-six disciplinary offences.
4. The first charge alleged that the Claimant had forged an application letter purportedly from Sekolah Al Amin Kota Mas in order to continue a swimming training programme in 2018.
5. Charges two to twenty-six alleged that the Claimant had improperly claimed and received swimming training fees between 2016 and 2018, which, according to the University, should have been paid directly to swimming coaches rather than through the Claimant.
6. A Domestic Inquiry was conducted on 8 May 2019. During the inquiry, the Claimant pleaded guilty to all twenty-six charges. Following the inquiry, the Disciplinary Committee issued its decision on 9 May 2019, imposing a written warning, freezing the Claimant’s annual increment for three years, and requiring counselling.
7. The Claimant did not appeal against the finding of guilt. Instead, on 13 May 2019, he submitted a formal appeal to the Rector of the University, seeking only a reduction of punishment on the grounds that the penalty imposed was excessive.
8. However, on 9 August 2019, the Rector not only dismissed the Claimant’s appeal but went further by setting aside the original punishment and imposing the ultimate sanction of dismissal with immediate effect. The Claimant’s employment was terminated on the same day.
9. Aggrieved by this decision, the Claimant filed a representation under section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, alleging that he had been dismissed without just cause or excuse.

The Claimant’s Case and Relief Sought

10. The Claimant’s case before the Industrial Court was not premised on a denial of misconduct per se, but rather on a fundamental challenge to the legality, fairness, and proportionality of the disciplinary process—particularly at the appellate stage.
11. The Claimant argued that his appeal to the Rector was confined strictly to the issue of mitigation of punishment. He did not challenge the findings of guilt made by the Disciplinary Committee. Accordingly, he had a legitimate expectation that the outcome of his appeal would either maintain or reduce the original penalty, and not result in a harsher sanction.
12. He contended that neither the University’s disciplinary rules, the IIUM Constitution, nor the IIUM Staff Disciplinary Rules 2015 expressly empowered the Rector to enhance punishment upon an employee’s appeal. To allow such enhancement, the Claimant argued, would be contrary to established principles of natural justice and would discourage employees from exercising their right of appeal.
13. On the substantive charges, particularly charges two to twenty-six, the Claimant asserted that the alleged misconduct occurred before August 2018, when the University formally implemented a policy requiring swimming training fees to be paid directly to coaches. Prior to that date, it was an established administrative practice for sports officers to collect and disburse such fees. As such, the Claimant maintained that he had acted in accordance with prevailing practices at the material time.
14. The Claimant further argued that his guilty plea during the Domestic Inquiry was made under a mistaken understanding of the applicable rules and policies. He submitted that a plea of guilt made under a misapprehension of material facts should not be used to justify the harshest disciplinary sanction.
15. In light of these factors, the Claimant sought a declaration that his dismissal was without just cause or excuse. He prayed for reinstatement to his former position, or alternatively, compensation in lieu of reinstatement together with backwages.

The Company’s Defence and Justification

16. The University maintained that the dismissal was lawful, justified, and within the scope of its disciplinary powers. It argued that the Claimant’s misconduct involved serious breaches of trust and integrity, including document falsification and improper financial dealings, which struck at the heart of the employment relationship.
17. The University relied heavily on the fact that the Claimant had pleaded guilty to all twenty-six charges during the Domestic Inquiry and had reaffirmed his admissions in his appeal letter. In the University’s view, there was therefore no factual dispute regarding the misconduct.
18. The University contended that Article 46(9) of the IIUM Constitution conferred wide discretionary powers on the Rector to make any decision deemed fair and just when hearing an appeal. This discretion, according to the University, included the power to impose a more severe punishment if warranted by the gravity of the misconduct.
19. It was further argued that the University had zero tolerance for integrity breaches, particularly in a public institution entrusted with educational and religious values. Given the seriousness of the offences, the original punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Committee was said to be manifestly inadequate, and the Rector was entitled to correct this by imposing dismissal.

The Industrial Court’s Analysis and Findings

20. The Industrial Court began its analysis by reiterating its statutory duty under section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The Court emphasized that it must first determine whether the misconduct was proven, and second, whether the misconduct justified dismissal as a proportionate response.
21. The burden of proof lay on the employer, and the standard of proof was on a balance of probabilities.
22. Upon a careful review of the evidence, the Court made a critical finding that fundamentally altered the outcome of the case. It held that charges two to twenty-six relating to the swimming training fees were not legally sustainable.
23. The Court accepted the Claimant’s evidence, corroborated by the University’s own audit report, that the policy requiring direct payment to coaches was implemented only in August 2018. All the alleged acts occurred before that date. As such, the Claimant could not be faulted for acting in accordance with the administrative practices prevailing at the time.
24. The Court found that the Claimant’s guilty plea in respect of these charges was made under a mistaken factual and legal premise, and therefore could not be relied upon to justify dismissal.

Detailed Legal Reasoning and Authorities Relied Upon

25. A central legal issue addressed by the Court was whether an appellate authority in disciplinary proceedings could lawfully enhance punishment upon an employee’s appeal.
26. The Court held that the purpose of an appeal mechanism is to provide redress and safeguard fairness, not to expose an employee to a greater penalty.
27. Allowing punishment to be enhanced on appeal would undermine natural justice and create a chilling effect on the exercise of appellate rights.
28. The Court interpreted Rule 31 of the IIUM Staff Disciplinary Rules 2015 purposively and held that the Rector’s discretion must be exercised within the bounds of fairness and proportionality. While broad discretion exists, it is not unfettered.
29. The Court concluded that the Rector’s decision to impose dismissal amounted to an excess of jurisdiction and was therefore legally untenable.

Was the Dismissal Procedurally and Substantively Fair?

30. The Court further examined whether dismissal was justified even in respect of the first charge alone. Applying the principle of proportionality, the Court held that dismissal was excessively harsh given the Claimant’s long service record and absence of prior serious misconduct.
31. The Court reaffirmed that dismissal is a sanction of last resort and must be commensurate with the gravity of the offence.

Award and Apportionment of Liability

32. Having found the dismissal to be without just cause or excuse, the Court considered the appropriate remedy. Reinstatement was deemed impractical due to the breakdown of trust.
33. Accordingly, the Court awarded:

• Compensation in lieu of reinstatement equivalent to 10 months’ salary amounting to RM36,383.60 (RM3,638.36 x 10 (worked 10 years)).
• Backwages RM3,638.36 x 15 equivalent to RM54,575.40 (RM3,638.36 x 15 months).
• Total: RM90,959.00 (RM36,383.60 + RM54,575.40).

34. The total award was RM90,959.00, payable within 30 days.

Source: CASE NO.: 21/4-624/20. AWARD NO.: 307 OF 2025. AWARD_41544. INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR. YA SYED NOH BIN SAID NAZIR @ SYED NADZIR.

==============================

*如果您需要聘请律师处理法律事务/付费法律咨询，请联系我们。

*欢迎Whatsapp Wilson Kuek律师: 019-2286668 (https://wa.me/60192286668) / 律师楼联系号码: 016-3229368 (https://wa.me/60163229368)。If you wish to engage our services, kindly Whatsapp Wilson Kuek at: 019-2286668 (https://wa.me/60192286668) / our Legal Firm’s contact at: 016-3229368 (https://wa.me/60163229368).

*我们的律师楼拥有超过 20 年的执业经验。我们有处理民事纠纷(打官司/法庭诉讼)、商业纠纷、劳工纠纷(工业法庭）、追讨债务、遗产分配、立遗嘱、离婚、抚养权、赡养费、产业分配、领养小孩、拟商业合约、拟雇佣协议、拟买卖合约、银行贷款、法律咨询、法律顾问、等法律事务。全马的案件，我们皆有处理。We handle various legal matters including civil litigation, commercial disputes, labour disputes (Industrial Court), debt recovery, probate & letter of administration, will, divorce, children custody, maintenance/alimony, adoption, distribution of matrimonial assets, drafting commercial agreements, drafting employment contracts, drafting sale and purchase agreements, process loan documentations, providing legal consultations, offering legal advisory services and handling miscellaneous legal works.

*我们的律师楼网站拥有超过3,000则法律文章，免费提供大众阅读+参考。欢迎填写您的资料，订阅我们的法律文章: www.kuekong.com。Our law firm’s website features over 3,000 legal articles, available for free to the public for reading and reference. Feel free to fill in your details to subscribe to our legal articles: www.kuekong.com.

*Wilson Kuek律师是《法律与你同行 Law & Justice》面子书群组的创办人。《法律与你同行》是马来西亚最大的法律平台。我们的平台每天为无数的平民百姓免费解除各类的法律困扰。Wilson Kuek is the founder of the Facebook group “Law & Justice.” “Law & Justice” is Malaysia’s largest legal platform, providing free legal assistance to countless individuals daily.

*加入我们的Telegram: https://t.me/LawAndJusticeGroup

*加入 我们的“法律与你同行”FB 群组: http://bit.ly/fblawnjustice

*加入我们的“法律与你同行的FB Page: https://bit.ly/lawandjusticefbpage

*订阅我们的YouTube (频道 1): https://bit.ly/48IFP0g

*订阅我们的YouTube (频道 2): http://bit.ly/lawnjustice

*Kuek, Ong & Associates. Advocates & Solicitors. No.86-1, Jalan Mahagoni 1, Bandar Botanic, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan.

#郭汪律师事务所 #郭汪律师楼 #郭、汪律师事务所 #郭、汪律师楼 #巴生律师事务所 #巴生律师楼 #吧生律师事务所 #吧生律师楼 #KL律师 #吉隆坡律师 #郭伟廷律师 #律师郭伟廷 #大状

#民事诉讼律师 #民事案律师 #商业诉讼律师

#专打官司的律师 #专打官司律师 #专打民事诉讼案 #专打民事纠纷案 #专打商业纠纷案

#处理工业法庭案件的律师 #处理工业法庭案件律师 #工业法庭律师 #劳工案件律师 #劳工法庭案件律师 #劳工法庭律师

#专打离婚案的律师 #专打离婚案律师 #处理离婚的律师 #处理离婚案的律师 #离婚律师

#买卖合约律师 #买卖合同律师 #商业合约 #商业合同

#有经验的律师 #好律师 #专业的律师 #值得信赖的律师 #信得过的律师 #靠得住的律师 #靠谱的律师 #利害的律师 #有信誉的律师 #有声望的律师 #有名望的律师 #有名声的律师 #出名的律师 #有名的律师 #有实力的律师 #马来西亚华人律师 #懂华文的律师 #懂华语的律师

#Kuek, Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong Associates #Kuek_Ong_Associates #Kuek-Ong-Associates #KuekOngAssociates #KuekOngAssociates #lawyer Wilson Kuek #WilsonKuek #Kuek Wee Teng #KuekWeeTeng

#Klang Legal Firm #Klang Lawyer #KL Lawyer #Kuala Lumpur Lawyer #Chinese Lawyer in Malaysia #Malaysia Lawyer #Civil Litigation Lawyer #Divorce Lawyer

#Specialised #Professional #Experienced #Trustworthy #Reliable #Reputable #Renowned #Famous #Skilled #Credible #Esteemed #Notable #Well-known #Capable

#不当解雇 #工业法庭判决 #Industrial Court Malaysia #Industrial Relations Act 1967 #Section 20 Industrial Relations Act #纪律处分上诉 #自然公正原则 #比例原则 #复职替代赔偿 #Backwages计算

#雇主越权 ultra vires #内部调查 Domestic Inquiry #员工申诉程序 #不当解雇赔偿金额 #马来西亚劳动法