Your Right To Be Heard Before Dismissal
You were dismissed without a real chance to explain your side.
What the case decided
Said Dharmalingam v Malayan Breweries (M) Sdn Bhd is a Federal Court decision from 1997. It is reported in the Malayan Law Journal (MLJ) at [1997] 1 MLJ 352.
The court held that, for an employee covered by the Employment Act 1955, a due inquiry before dismissal for misconduct is required. Dismissing without one is a serious flaw.1
What the principle means plainly
If your employer accused you of misconduct and dismissed you without any inquiry, that is worth raising.
An inquiry means you were told what you were accused of and had a genuine chance to answer.
What it means for a worker
If you were never asked to respond to the accusation before dismissal, this case supports raising that as a serious issue. Check whether you are covered by the Employment Act, because a lawyer will need to confirm that.
Keep any show cause letter, meeting notes or correspondence around your dismissal, since these show whether you were genuinely given a chance to respond.
Where this fits in a claim
This case reinforces the importance of a fair process in a domestic inquiry. It is raised alongside how to respond to a show cause letter.
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.
What to ask a lawyer
Ask whether a due inquiry was held in your case, and whether the Employment Act covers you.
Write down who spoke to you before the dismissal, and what you were told.
If you were dismissed without a real chance to answer the accusation, an independent employment lawyer can review exactly what happened and take the claim forward 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 Said Dharmalingam v Malayan Breweries decide?
The Federal Court held that, for employees covered by the Employment Act, a due inquiry under section 14(1) is required before dismissal for misconduct. Dismissing without one is a serious flaw.
What if I was dismissed without ever being asked to respond?
This case supports raising that as a serious point in your claim. Being denied a due inquiry before dismissal is a substantial procedural failing, not a minor technicality.
Does having an inquiry mean I keep my job?
No, a fair inquiry does not decide the outcome by itself. It means you had a genuine chance to answer the allegations, which the Industrial Court weighs alongside everything else.
Sources
- In Said Dharmalingam v Malayan Breweries [1997] 1 MLJ 352, the Federal Court held that a due inquiry under section 14(1) of the Employment Act 1955 before dismissal for misconduct is mandatory for covered employees, and that its absence is a fatal procedural flaw. RDS Law Partners, Domestic Inquiry: Balancing Procedural and Substantive Fairness
Keep reading
If you were dismissed without a real chance to answer the accusation, an independent employment lawyer can review exactly what happened and take the claim forward 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.