1.0 Edaran Communication SB lwn Tahar Mohamed (1998) 3 ILR 487 The accused was dismissed from his position in the company due to his immoral acts towards his female subordinate workers. According to the Company Second Witness (C2W), who is a housekeeping officer, the accused molested her from February to March 1997. The accused touched her on the shoulder and constantly asked her to go out on a date. However, C2W refused the invitation every time he asked and this led to the continuous invitations from the defendant. On another occasion, the defendant asked C2W to clean a room in the office, but later discovered that it was not necessary to clean it. Later, the accused pulled her arm and asked her to sit down, but the victim freaked out and left the room. On the last occasion, the victim was hugged from behind while carrying out his duties. All complaints showed that the accused used his superiority to dominate his subordinate. This is an important situation in most cases of sexual harassment at workplace, home and even in universities. People who possessed a higher degree of authority (usually male) and had a tendency towards sexual harassment, would use this opportunity as a weapon against his victims. In Edaran Communication, the accused had also molested the tea lady (C3W) by holding her hand, constantly asking her to go out and also inviting her into an empty room, which scared the victim to the point of molesting her. The models created were similar to the same model created for C2W. This proved that the abuser will copy his previous act towards other victims if he thinks it will work on her too. The company in this case, Edaran Communication SB, has an effective human resource management where the grievance committee not only covers employees and officials but they cover cleaners who are not permanent workers in the company. The victims had lodged complaints with the council and according to Company Sixth Witness (C6W), had called the accused for an investigation process. The defendant then denied the allegation and the company asked him to provide a written response to deny the allegation made, but he did not do so. The company disciplinary committee subsequently found him guilty of the charges based on the evidence provided and he was dismissed. He argued that the dismissal was unfair.