The Claimant joined the Company on 16.9.1994 as a General Labourer and thereafter was offered employment as a Postman upon privatization of the Company in 1996.

The Claimant was transferred to Poslaju at Pusat Serahan Ayer Keroh, Melaka with effect from 1.10.2020. Unfortunately, he did not report for duty as required and was on medical leave from 1.10.2020 to 2.10.2020. Subsequently, he reported to work on 5.10.2020. However, he failed to turn up for work from 6.10.2020 to 8.10.2020 without informing the reason for his absence. He remained uncontactable from 8.10.2020 to 15.10.2020.

The Company issued a letter to the Claimant dated 12.10.2020 requiring him to report for duty on 13.10.2020. If he fails to turn up, the Company shall deem that he no longer was interested to be an employee in the Company. The Claimant failed to report for duty. By a letter dated 15.10.2020, the Company regarded the Claimant as having absent from work from 6.10.2020 to 15.10.2020 without prior approval and without notifying the Company. In the same letter, the Company confirmed that the Claimant had in effect self-terminated his employment with the Company.

The Industrial Court upheld the decision of the Company, that the Claimant was aware that absence from work or absence from the Claimant's appointed place of work without permission is a serious misconduct under the Company’s rules and regulations.

The Industrial Court found that the Claimant was absent from work from the 6.10.2020 to 15.10.2020 without approval of the Company. The attendance card of the Claimant and the uncontroverted testimony of COW-1 corroborates this. The Company has established that the Claimant's absence was without the Company's prior permission.

The onus thus shifts to the Claimant to prove that he had reasonable excuse for his absence and that he had attempted to inform the Company at the earliest opportunity. The Claimant's testimony shows that any attempt to notify the Company was only made after 15.10.2020, following his termination from employment. The Claimant did not however explain the nature of his illness or produce any cogent evidence to prove that he had undergone recognized medical treatment to cure his illness. The Court in this regard took notice that only medical certificates that are issued by a registered medical practitioner is deemed to be a ground for sick leave. Treatment by a “bomoh” is not recognized in law hence there was no excuse for the Claimant not attending work.

Thus, the Claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal was dismissed.