Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Salary Payment During Police Detention

Kita termakan pujukan kawan-kawan untuk join demonstrasi BERSIH 2.1 dan unfortunately nasib kita tak baik, dan kita telah ditangkap oleh pihak berkuasa kerana menyertai perhimpunan haram. Or kiat jalan-jalan di hujung minggu dan kebetulan lalu di kawasan demonstrasi, nasib kita masih tak baik, kita berada di wrong place at the wrong time dan ditangkap oleh pihak berkuasa. Arahan tahanan reman untuk tujuan siasatan dikeluarkan dan kita telah ditahan selama 3 hari (contoh) untuk tujuan itu.

Nasib kita baik pula, kerana majikan tidak mengambil tindakan ke atas kita kerana tidak hadir bekerja. TAPI! Bila check gaji pada hujung bulan, nampak macam sikit. YA! Mmg sikit dari yang biasa sebab pada Seksyen 23, Akta Kerja 1955 jelas menyatakan –
S23. Wages shall not become payable to or recoverable by any employee from his employer for or on account of the term of any sentence of imprisonment undergone by him or for any period spent by him in custody or for or on account of any period spent by him in going to or returning from prison or other place of custody or for or on account of any period spent by him in going to, attending before or returning from a court otherwise than as a witness on his employer’s behalf.  
Malah, ada contoh-contoh quote cases yang boleh dijadikan panduan dalam perkara ini –

In MSAS Cargo International (M) Sdn. Bhd. v. Rajaratnam M.K. Rajan [1994] 2 ILR 1030 (Award No. 461 of 1994) where the court referred to “Industrial Court” by Smith & Wood, 4th edn at p. 309 as follows:

“Where the crime arises within the employment (the obvious example being theft or the employer’s property) the employer’s need to dismiss may appear to him to be more urgent, but at the same time the employee under suspicion must not be treated arbitrarily. The position as it has evolved (particularly since the decision of the EAT British Home Stores Ltd v. Burchell, approved by the Court of Appeal in W. Weddell & Co Ltd v. Tepper) is that the employer may dismiss if he has a genuine belief in the employee’s guilt, which is based upon reasonable grounds; he does not have to be able to prove the employee’s guilt and so provided the employer has his genuine belief it is irrelevant if the employee is later acquitted of the offence (or indeed if the police decline to bring charges).”

No comments: