- In Lim Giat Eng v. Farlim Group (M) Bhd  1 MELR 44, the defendant dismissed the plaintiff for being absent from work for more than two consecutive days without prior vacation leave approval wherein the defendant contended that it was adopting the provisions of s 15(2) of the Employment Act 1955 when it dismissed the plaintiff. Noraini Abdul Rahman JC concluded as follows:“With the facts and the law as stated above, I have come to a conclusion that this is not a case of unlawful dismissal by the defendant but rather the plaintiff had brought it upon himself the consequences of his absence from work. Therefore, there is no need for the defendant to hold a domestic inquiry as this is not a case of misconduct leading to unlawful termination or dismissal of the plaintiff …”
- In Pan Global Textiles Bhd Pulau Pinang v. Ang Beng Teik  1 MELR 39, the Federal Court stated as follows:“And as to absence of employee without permission, BR Ghaiye, at p 712 of the same book, said:“No employee can claim as a matter of right leave of absence without permission and when there might not be any permission for the same. Remaining absent without any permission is, therefore, gross violation of discipline …”
- In Nila Ponnan v. UCM Industrial Corporation Bhd  1 MELR 915, the following was stated at paras 10-11:“In the reported case of Kong Brothers Engineering Works Sdn Bhd v. Daniel Anmany Susemaikam  3 MELR 793, the court remarked that the act of leaving the work place without leave or deliberately staying away from work is a violation of discipline and amounts to willful insubordination. These are serious misconducts. Quoting again from BR Ghaiye in Misconduct in Employment (supra) at pp 708-712 states:The expression ‘leave’ means leave of absence, that is to say, the permission obtained by an employee from his employer relieving him from the duty of attending to work. The dictionary meaning of the word ‘leave’ being permission is given or the leave sought is granted, it cannot be said that the person seeking leave can absent himself from duty in an unauthorized manner … When an employee requires leave, it is necessary to apply for leave even if he has some just cause for absence … No employee can claim as a matter of right leave of absence without permission and when there might not be any permission for the same. Remaining absent without any permission is therefore a gross violation of discipline … When a workman remains absent for a number of days and it is his defence he was permitted to do so by the management, the burden lies on him to prove the said permission and he has to give proper evidence of the same.”
- In Ramasamy S/O Pattany (Pemborong) Ladang Batu Arang, Rawang v.Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Ladang  1 MELR 161, it was said:‘Absence without leave for more than two consecutive working days is deemed to be a breach of the contract of service by s 15(2) … The employer can either terminate the employee’s contract of service under s 13(2) or deal with him under s 14 after due inquiry on the grounds of misconduct. (See also Gim Aik Estate Sdn Bhd Malacca v. Nationam Union of Plantation Workers  1 MELR 64.
- In Lian Yit Engineering Works Sdn Bhd v. Loh Ah Fon & Ors  1 MLRH 59, Abdul Hamid J said:“In the light of ss 13-15 of the EA, it would seem clear that a worker who continuously absents himself from work for more than two working days without reasonable excuse commits a wilful breach of his contract of service for which the employer may terminate without notice.”
- In Crowne Plaza Riverside Kuching v. Mohamad Zulkarnaen Suhaili  1 MELR 636, the following was stated:“On the matter of absence from work, industrial jurisprudence developed through the course of industrial adjudication has laid down clear and comprehensive principles which employers and employees will do well to observe. These principles have evolved from the application of s 15(2) of the EA. Although not of general application in the sense that the said piece of legislation applies only to scheduled employees in Peninsular Malaysia and not at all in Sabah and Sarawak, the Industrial Court considers the underlying principles in the provision to be most helpful in dealing with the issue of absenteeism as an employment misconduct. The subsection read as follows … It will immediately be obvious that mere absence from work for two or more days consecutively does not constitute a breach of contract under the EA; or, for the purpose of industrial adjudication under s 20 of the IRA, a disciplinary offence. An absent workman misconducts himself if he is either absent from work without reasonable excuse or, if he has a reasonable excuse, fails to inform or attempt to inform his employer of such excuse prior to or at the earliest opportunity during his absence …The hotel has proven that the claimant’s absence was without its prior permission. The onus now shifts to the claimant to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his absence, and that he had attempted to inform the hotel at the earliest opportunity of the same. Having proceeded on the basis that he had prior approval, the claimant did not attempt to establish such reasonable excuse. Neither was he able to show that he did make reasonable attempts to inform the hotel as soon as he could do so of his absence and his reasons therefor. The claimant had failed to comply with a basic obligation of an employee, whose principal duty it is to be present at his employer’s workplace to render the services expected of him; and even if he had an excuse for being absent, to undertake that basic duty which is pure common sense and the legitimate expectation of any employer, to inform the hotel of his inability to turn up for work for three consecutive days at a time when the hotel needed all available staff.”
Source: Saravanan Tanimalai v. A W Faber-Castell (M) Sdn Bhd  3 ILR 384
*加入 我们的“法律与你同行”FB 群组: http://bit.ly/fblawnjustice
*Like 我们的“法律与你同行” FB Page: http://bit.ly/lawnjusticefbpage
*Wilson Kuek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。我们为无数的平民百姓免费解除了各类的法律困扰。
*Kuek, Ong & Associates. Advocates & Solicitors. No.86-1, Jalan Mahagoni 1, Bandar Botanic, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan. Klang Lawyer. 巴生(吧生)律师楼。
*We have more than 15 years of experience in the legal profession. We handle matters such as commercial disputes, civil litigation, debt recovery, probate & letter of administration, will, divorce, children custody, maintenance/alimony, adoption, distribution of matrimonial assets, drafting commercial agreement, drafting sale and purchase agreement, process loan documentations, legal consultation, legal advisory, miscellaneous legal works.
#马来西亚华人律师 #Chinese Lawyer in Malaysia #Malaysia Lawyer #巴生律师 #吧生律师 #Klang Lawyer #KL律师 #吉隆坡律师 #KL Lawyer #懂华文的律师 #民事诉讼律师
#Kuek, Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong Associates #郭汪律师事务所 #郭汪律师楼
#Absent for more than Two Consecutive Working Days #两天没来上班 #48个小时没来上班 #MIA #missing in action