AMIRUL FAWZAL ZULKEPLI v. KZ ENGINEERING SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, PENANG
JEYASEELEN T ANTHONY
AWARD NO. 755 OF 2026 [CASE NO: 18-4-665-25]
14 MAY 2026

Abstract – An employer is not legally required to prove every single allegation of misconduct levelled against an employee to justify termination. Provided it is established on a balance of probabilities, a single proven charge of sufficient gravity is legally adequate on its own to constitute just cause and excuse for dismissal.

---

MOHAMED IDRIS MOHAMED SHAFI v. INNOPRISE CAPITAL SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, SARAWAK
MOHD TAUFIK MOHD YUSOFF
AWARD NO. 790 OF 2026 [CASE NO: 17-4-100-24]
18 MAY 2026

Abstract – An employer or designated disciplinary authority is not bound by the lenient punishment recommendations of a domestic inquiry panel and retains the absolute authority to escalate the punishment to dismissal, provided that: (i) the final deciding authority is expressly empowered by the company’s service regulations or terms of employment to impose final disciplinary actions; and (ii) the decision-maker exercises this power reasonably by reviewing the complete record of the domestic proceedings and providing clear, documented justifications as to why they are differing from the domestic inquiry panel’s recommendation.

Award	Parties	Citation	Links
	PP v. Specasts Industries Sdn Bhd [Summons Case No: KCH-63-66-9-2025]	[2026] 2 ILR 203
624/2026	Lim Chee Keong v. MDC Precast Industries Sdn Bhd [Case No: 9-4-309-24]	[2026] 2 ILR 215
658/2026	Lakshumanan Balachendran v. Ipoh Hindu Devasthana Paripalana Sabah [Case No: 10-4-46-25]	[2026] 2 ILR 233
661/2026	Wong Kok Lam v. Waiko Engineering Works Sdn Bhd [Case No: 10-4-1688-23]	[2026] 2 ILR 257
678/2026	Teng Mee Cheng v. Cempakaraya Sdn Bhd [Case No: 6-4-347-24]	[2026] 2 ILR 284
680/2026	Theng Mun Song v. G & Fast World Link Sdn Bhd [Case No: 4-4-1401-24]	[2026] 2 ILR 314
692/2026	Saifulla Sadiq Sayed v. SMS Outsourcing Services Sdn Bhd [Case No: 22-4-2240-21]	[2026] 2 ILR 332
706/2026	Steven Foong Wai Loon v. SL Ziran Nursery Sdn Bhd [Case No: 10-4-25-24]	[2026] 2 ILR 351
726/2026	Lee Leng Men v. Edgenta UEMS Sdn Bhd [Case No: 20-4-1796-23]	[2026] 2 ILR 724
755/2026	Amirul Fawzal Zulkepli v. KZ Engineering Sdn Bhd [Case No: 18-4-665-25]	[2026] 2 ILR 397
790/2026	Mohamed Idris Mohamed Shafi v. Innoprise Capital Sdn Bhd [Case No: 17-4-100-24]	[2026] 2 ILR 419

SUBJECT INDEX

" ... the plea of frustration did not apply in this case as it would only apply when there is a non-foreseeable occurrence of a supervening event that would render further performance of the contract impossible. Such events are never catered for in the contract hence frustration occurs outside the ambit of the contract. There must first be some event capable of rendering performance of the contract impossible or radically different from that which the parties contemplated and secondly, the event itself must occur without fault of default of either party. Frustration is not lightly inferred in employment relationships particularly in industrial law where the court is concerned with substantive fairness. The doctrine applies only where performance has become objectively impossible, permanent and incapable of remedy. In the instant case, the company was fully aware of the claimant’s disability and OKU status with his visual impairment from the very beginning when he was employed by the company." - Per Zulhelmy Hasan in Steven Foong Wai Loon v. SL Ziran Nursery Sdn Bhd [2026] 2 ILR 351