4. Case study: Elangovan a/l Adiapan Vs. Southern Steel Berhad Elangovan (the claimant) began his employment with Southem Steel Berhad (the respondent) in 2003 as an Operator and was then promoted to Machine Operator. On 10th April 2017, the claimant was absent from work. None of his colleagues, including his immediate supervisor, was able to contact him. The claimant returned to work the next day and submitted a leave application together with a receipt (Receipt No.: 1294) issued by Kim Hau Motorparts Resources. However, it was rejected by the supervisor, based on the reason that the claimant failed to inform the supervisor and he was very unhappy with such an irresponsible attitude. On 15th May 2017, the respondent issued a Show Cause Letter demanding the claimant to explain his absence without leave (AWOL) on 10th April 2017. The claimant replied after ten days, claiming that his motorcycle broke down on the way to work and promising that he will apply for leave later. Subsequently, one-day pay was deducted from the claimant's salary for the month of May 2017. On top of the pay deduction, the claimant was asked to apply for one day of annual leave for AWOL in view that he has a balance of eight days' annual leave entitlement. The claimant did submit his leave form, albeit later on 1st July 2017, together with a cash bill from Sum Motor dated 10th April 2017 as evidence (Receipt No.: 9039). The respondent realized that the claimant had indeed submitted two different receipts from two different workshops. The supervisor went to Sum Motors to investigate the matter and showed receipt number 9039 dated 10th April 2017 to a Chinese gentleman', who was believed is the owner of the workshop. The owner confirmed that the receipt shown was issued on 1st July 2017. Carbon copies of cash bills bearing serial numbers 9038 dated 29th June 2017 and 9040 dated 1st July 2017 were submitted to the human resource manager for further action. Following these findings, the respondent issued a Show Cause Letter to the claimant on 4th July 2017 questioning about the AWOL. The claimant replied accordingly, giving the same explanation as in the replied Show Cause Letter in May 2017. Unhappy with the explanation, a Notice of Domestic Inquiry dated 15th July 2017 was issued pertaining to AWOL. A Domestic Inquiry was convened on 22nd July 2017. The claimant was represented by two representatives from the union and the Notes of the Domestic Inquiry were duly signed by the panel members, the prosecuting officer and two union representatives. During the inquiry, the prosecuting officer did not call any witnesses but relied on the carbon copies of cash bills as the sole evidence. On the contrary, the prosecuting officer and the panel members questioned the claimant to obtain evidence. The Board of Inquiry concluded that the claimant was found guilty, i.e. dishonest for submitting false receipts. Consequently, the claimant was dismissed with immediate effect as he was given a final warning letter on 1st June 2017, due to poor work performance. b) Criticise the misconduct handled by the respondent. Support your evidence from the case above