Judicial review assesses decision-making processes and not merits; retrenchment deemed genuine.

[1] This is an application by the Applicant, Joseph A/L Lourdesamy ('the Applicant') for judicial review under O 53(3) of the Rules of 2012 ('RoC 2012') for an order for certiorari to quash the decision of Industrial Court in the Award No 986 of 2014 which was made on 20 August 2014.

[2] The Applicant had also sought for an order for mandamus directed to the Registrar of the Industrial Court to direct the Industrial Court case No 2/4-660/11 to be fixed for trial in front of another Chairman of Industrial Court to determine the appropriate remedy to be awarded to the Applicant.

[3] In the alternative, the Applicant prayed that this Court make an order that the Applicant was terminated without just cause or excuse and consequently, determine the appropriate remedies to be awarded to the Applicant.

[4] Finally, the Applicant applied for costs to be in the cause.

Cause Papers

[5] For the purpose of this judicial review application the following documents were filed and referred to by this Court:-

5.1. The Applicant's Application for Judicial Review dated 14th November 2014 ('Enclosure 1');

5.2. Statement filed pursuant to O 53 r 3(2) of the RoC 2012 ('Enclosure 2');

5.3. Affidavit in Support affirmed by the Applicant on 14th November 2014 ('Enclosure 3');

5.4. Notice of Hearing for Judicial Review dated 19th January 2015 ('Enclosure 5');

5.5. Affidavit in Reply of the 1st Respondent affirmed by Paul Thomas Kannimmel on 3rd March 2015 ('Enclosure 6'); and

5.6. Additional Affidavit affirmed by solicitor for the Applicant, Parimaladevi A/P Sangaran, affirmed on 9th April 2015 enclosing Notes of Proceedings from Industrial Court ('Enclosure 7');

Background Facts

[6] The facts leading to the filing of the judicial review application had been set out in respective submissions filed herein. In order to save judicial time the same are being reproduced below as follows:-

6.1. The Applicant was employed by the 1st Respondent from April 1996 to August 2000. The Applicant resigned from the 1st Respondent to move to Italy. His last position before his resignation was Head Counsel, Entertainment and Production;

6.2. In 2002, the Applicant returned to Malaysia. On 1st October 2002, he was reemployed by the 1st Respondent as Head Counsel, Entertainment and Production;

6.3. The Applicant's job scope were as set out at pp 4 and 5 of encl 3;

6.4. The 1st Respondent had engaged a firm of independent advisors to advice on its workforce strategy. The main intention of the reorganization was to optimize productivity and efficacy.

6.5. This initiative was documented through an independent report prepared by the Hay Group known as "Workforce Strategy for Astro TV".

6.6. As a result of this report, the 1st Respondent embarked in a reorganization and retrenchment exercise which led to 63 of its employees having been identified as surplus in various departments of the 1st Respondent, which included the Applicant.

6.7. Vide a letter dated 27 March 2009, the Applicant was informed by the 1st Respondent that his position was identified as being redundant and therefore the Applicant was terminated from his employment from 1 April 2009.

6.8. The 1st Respondent had paid the Appellant a sum of RM184,257.83 consisting of retrenchment benefit, contractual bonus, leave pay and payment in lieu of notice less statutory deductions until the termination date.

6.9. The Applicant requested and negotiated for certain additional benefits upon his retrenchment, and the 1st Respondent had duly acceded to this request by extending the medical insurance and the Astro services was to be extended for 1 year.