What Ireka Construction Means For You
The case confirming your employer must prove the misconduct it alleges.
What the case decided
Ireka Construction Bhd v Chantiravathan a/l Subramaniam James was decided by the Industrial Court in 1995. It is reported in the Industrial Law Reports (ILR) at [1995] 2 ILR 11, and sets out who must prove misconduct.
The court called this a basic principle of dismissal cases.
The employer must produce convincing evidence that the worker committed the offence alleged, because the burden of proving just cause and excuse lies on the employer.1
What the principle means plainly
You are not on trial to prove your own innocence.
Your former employer has to bring the evidence, whether that is documents, witness statements or records, and show it is convincing.
If the evidence is thin, inconsistent or missing key details, that weakness works against the employer, not against you.
What it means for a worker
Before you file, list what your employer says you did and what proof it has shown you.
Make a short list of each allegation and, next to it, any document or witness that answers it.
You can still gather and present your own evidence to counter what is put forward, but you are responding, not starting from a position of guilt.
Keep any documents, messages or records relevant to the alleged misconduct, since these can become central once the employer’s evidence is tested.
Where this fits in a claim
This case sits at the heart of a misconduct dismissal claim and works alongside the rules on domestic inquiry.
Your outcome depends on your own facts, and no result is promised.
The 60-day window under Section 20 still applies, so check the deadline calculator early.
If you were dismissed for alleged misconduct and want your employer held to its burden of proof, an independent employment lawyer can review your evidence. They can act for you if you have grounds.
For people seeking legal representation. For general information, please use our guides and tools.
First contact: general facts only, such as date, location, employment status and a short summary. Keep documents private until an identified independent lawyer contacts you and specifically requests them.
Common questions
What did Ireka Construction v Chantiravathan establish?
The Industrial Court stated it is a basic principle that the employer must produce convincing evidence of the misconduct alleged. The burden of proving just cause and excuse for a dismissal lies on the employer, not the worker.
Do I need to prove I did not do what I am accused of?
No, the starting point is that your employer must bring convincing evidence to the Industrial Court. You can still respond to that evidence, but the legal burden sits with the employer throughout.
Does this apply to every type of dismissal?
The burden of proving just cause lies on the employer in any dismissal case. The principle is mainly cited in misconduct dismissals, where an employer alleges specific wrongdoing such as theft, insubordination or dishonesty.
Sources
- It is a basic principle that in a dismissal case the employer must produce convincing evidence that the worker committed the offence alleged, since the burden of proving just cause and excuse lies on the employer. Kuek, Ong & Associates
Keep reading
If you were dismissed for alleged misconduct and want your employer held to its burden of proof, an independent employment lawyer can review your evidence. They can act for you if you have grounds.
For people seeking legal representation. For general information, please use our guides and tools.
First contact: general facts only, such as date, location, employment status and a short summary. Keep documents private until an identified independent lawyer contacts you and specifically requests them.