Industrial Court Upholds Dismissals For Falsified Travel Claims

The Industrial Court has recently affirmed the dismissals of two technicians who submitted falsified hotel receipts in support of outstation travel claims. These decisions reinforce the long‑established principle that dishonesty strikes at the core of the employment relationship and justifies the most serious disciplinary action.

Brief facts

The two employees, both technicians, had been deployed together on a series of outstation assignments in September 2022. The following month, their employers uncovered discrepancies in the accommodation receipts submitted for reimbursement.

In Murali a/l Letchumanan v Titi Maju Sdn Bhd (Award No. 1253 of 2025), the falsified claims related to trips to Malacca, Johor Bahru and Seremban. In Nordin Bin Wahab v Antah Schindler Sdn Bhd (Award No. 64 of 2026), the falsified claims involved the trips to Malacca and Johor Bahru only. Both employees were also charged for failing to produce the original hotel receipts.

Malacca trip

• The receipts submitted stated the hotel as 118 Hotel Metro.
• Site checks revealed that the hotel at the stated address in the receipts was actually Good2Stay Hotel, and there were no branches of 118 Hotel Metro in Malacca.

Johor bahru trip

• Enquiries with Hotel Time confirmed the receipts did not match actual room rates and were not issued by the hotel.
• In particular, the employers noted that Hotel Time issued manual receipts, as opposed to the printed receipts that were submitted by the former employees.

Seremban trip (murali a/l letchumanan only)

• The former employee used Hotel Time's template to fabricate a receipt for Rivero Boutique Hotel.
• The rate was inconsistent with the hotel’s charges, and evidence showed he did not stay there.

Both individuals were given an opportunity to explain the discrepancies, but their explanations were found to be unsatisfactory by their employers. Domestic inquiries were convened, and both were found guilty of the alleged misconduct against them. The former employees' employment were then terminated by their respective employers.

Industrial court decision

The Industrial Court held that both employees merely denied wrongdoing without providing any evidence to support the authenticity of the receipts. Because the employers had adduced clear evidence of falsification, the Court found that:

• the burden lay on the former employees to prove the receipts were genuine; and
• the former employees failed to produce originals or call hotel staff to verify the documents.

The Court emphasised that the misconduct involved a deliberate attempt to obtain reimbursement through fraudulent means, not a minor administrative lapse. It noted that the fact an employer may have initially processed a false claim does not negate the employee’s wrongdoing.

The Court also reiterated that long service does not insulate an employee from dismissal, especially where the misconduct undermines trust and integrity. The dismissals were therefore held to be proportionate and justified.

Key takeaways

These decisions underscore the importance of submitting truthful and accurate expense claims and reaffirm that honesty and integrity remain at the core of every employment relationship. Attempting to claim reimbursements using falsified documents, even of small value, can amount to serious misconduct justifying dismissal.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.