By Faudzil Harun - Trans Management Consultants (TMC)
interest is only a general principle, which is not applicable in a domestic
inquiry. If otherwise, this would cause absurdity in the sense that the
employer cannot hold an inquiry to decide whether or not to dismiss the
employee.
In disciplining employees regards must be paid to the following principles
as held in Mukhtar Singh & Others v State of U.P, Agarwala J, AIR
1957 ALL297 quoted in Law of Wrongful Dismissal etc by Suranjan
Chakraverti, 6th edition (P13) :-
That the authority must act in good faith, and not arbitrarily but
reasonably.
(i) That every person whose civil rights are affected must have
reasonable notice of the case he has to meet;
(ii) That he must have reasonable opportunity of being heard in his
defense;
(iii) The hearing must be by an impartial tribunal i.e. a person who is
neither directly or indirectly the party to the case.
The principles of natural justice are
those rules, which have been laid down by the courts as being the minimum
protection of the rights of the employee against the arbitrary procedures that
may be adopted by a judicial or quasi-judicial authority while making an order
affecting those rights.
The principles of natural justice in the context of industrial disciplinary may be stated as follows :
1. That the workman whose conduct is being inquired into must have
The principles of natural justice in the context of industrial disciplinary may be stated as follows :
1. That the workman whose conduct is being inquired into must have
reasonable notice of the case he has to meet.
2. That he must have reasonable opportunity of being heard in his own
2. That he must have reasonable opportunity of being heard in his own
defence according to the maxim’audi alteram
partem’ (principle of natural
justice where the judge should hear both
sides) and this includes, inter
alia, the opportunity to face and challenge
his accusers, witnesses and
whatever evidence there is against him.
In Syarikat Great Eastern Life Assurance Bhd v Kesatuan Sekerja
In Syarikat Great Eastern Life Assurance Bhd v Kesatuan Sekerja
Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Perdagangan, I/C
Award 21/69, it was
held that what this entails is for the employee who is
to be dismissed to
be informed of the charges against him to enable him to give
his
explanation.
3. That the hearing must be by an impartial
tribunal e.g. a person who is
neither directly or indirectly the party to
the case. “Nemo debet esse
judex in propria causa sua” that is to say no man
shall sit in judgment in
his own cause or in which he is interested.
In Pritam Singh v Triptipal Singh & Co. & Another, (1991) 3 CLJ2 103,
In Pritam Singh v Triptipal Singh & Co. & Another, (1991) 3 CLJ2 103,
the employee was dismissed after a
domestic inquiry conducted by the
employer. The employee argued that the
employer should not conduct the
inquiry because this would be contrary to
the rules of natural justice that
one should not adjudicate a matter in which he
has an interest. The High
Court dismissed the
application. It held that the rule of natural justice
prohibiting a person from
adjudicating a matter in which he has an interest is only a general principle, which is not applicable in a domestic
inquiry. If otherwise, this would cause absurdity in the sense that the
employer cannot hold an inquiry to decide whether or not to dismiss the
employee.
In disciplining employees regards must be paid to the following principles
as held in Mukhtar Singh & Others v State of U.P, Agarwala J, AIR
1957 ALL297 quoted in Law of Wrongful Dismissal etc by Suranjan
Chakraverti, 6th edition (P13) :-
That the authority must act in good faith, and not arbitrarily but
reasonably.
(i) That every person whose civil rights are affected must have
reasonable notice of the case he has to meet;
(ii) That he must have reasonable opportunity of being heard in his
defense;
(iii) The hearing must be by an impartial tribunal i.e. a person who is
neither directly or indirectly the party to the case.