Chairman D Paramalingam said the court could consider such evidence, even if illegally obtained, to determine a fact in dispute.He also said that proceedings under the Industrial Relations Act 1967 are not bound by the stringent rules governing evidence in civil and criminal court proceedings.
Jagen contended that the recording of a meeting he had on Jan 28, 2019 with Agarcorp’s general manager Farid Anwar Naidu Abdul Manan, finance manager Sha Mahani Rudin and company lawyer Jeffrey John, was not admissible in evidence.He claimed that the recording, in which he made several admissions, was recorded by the company’s service manager Carlos Matheus illegally and without his knowledge.
“Based on the prevailing law and mindful that this court has to act in equity and good conscience without being shackled by technical impediments, this court allows the audio recording to be admitted as evidence, as it is relevant and will assist in determining the facts in dispute between both parties,” he said.
“A conflict of interest arose when the claimant and his purported ‘brother Jega’ actively involved themselves in carrying out services on behalf of Ensetcorp in direct competition with the company,” he said.Paramalingam said the punishment of dismissal meted out by the company in the circumstances of the case was proportionate to the act of misconduct complained of.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: staronline - 🏆 4. / 75 Read more »
Source: theSundaily - 🏆 25. / 51 Read more »
Source: theSundaily - 🏆 25. / 51 Read more »