The court emphasized that retrenchment must be bona fide and adhere to fair labor practices, underscoring the significance of evidence in determining redundancy.

A) Introduction

[1] This the Applicant's application for judicial review to review the Award dated 21 May 2015 ("the Award") handed down by the 1st Respondent which held that the 2nd Respondent had dismissed the Applicant with just cause and excuse.

[2] By way of this application, the Applicant seeks inter alia the following orders:-

(a) An order of Certiorari to quash the award of the 1st Respondent dated 21 May 2015 which dismissed the Applicant's claim for unjust dismissal under Case No 18(10)(18)/4-692/12;

(b) A declaration that the Applicant was dismissed without just cause or excuse and the Applicant be reinstated to his former position in the 2nd Respondent without loss of seniority with full benefits and privileges or compensation in lieu of reinstatement;

(c) In the alternative to (ii) above, an order of Mandamus to remit the Applicant's claim under Case No 18(10)(18)/4-692/12 to the Industrial Court to be heard de novo by a different chairman.

B) Grounds For Judicial Review

[3] It has been now been commonly accepted that the grounds for judicial review in summary are as follows:-

(i) Illegality - that the decision maker had failed to keep strictly within the perimeters of his powers;

(ii) Irrationality or "Wednesbury unreasonableness" - that the decision was "so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it"; and

(iii) Procedural impropriety - that the decision maker failed to observe basic rules of natural justice and or procedural rules.

[4] See Council of Civil Service Unions and Others Appellants v. Minister for the Civil Service Respondent [1985] AC 374 and Ambank (M) Berhad v. Menteri Sumber Manusia & Persatuan Pegawai-Pegawai Bank Semenanjung Malaysia (ABOM), [2014] 6 MLJ 377.

[5] Over the course of time the principle of proportionality has also been added to the above categories thus widening the scope of judicial intervention of administrative action by way of judicial review.

[6] In Sheila Sangar v. Proton Edar Sdn Bhd & Anor, [2009] 4 MLJ 285, the principles governing judicial review was neatly encapsulated as follows:-

"The first principle of judicial review concerned the decision making process and not the merits, substance or justification. The second principle is that there can be an exception to the first principle where the Court could examine the substance or justification to satisfy itself that the decision maker had not transgressed the principles of procedural impropriety, illegality or irrationality."

[7] The boundaries however, that traditionally distinguished review for process and that of substance have been removed. The courts are now therefore more inclined to review for substance as well in an appropriate case where the situation so requires See R Ramachandran v. The Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor, [1997] 1 MLJ 145, and Ranjit Kaur S Gopal Singh v. Hotel Excelsior (M) Sdn Bhd; [2010] 5 MLRA 696; [2011] 1 ILJ 479; [2010] 6 MLJ 1; [2010] 4 ILR 475; [2010] 8 CLJ 629.

C) Salient Facts

[8] On 7 July 1980, the Applicant commenced employment with Hewlett Packard Malaysia Sdn Bhd ("HP") as the Production Engineer and worked his way up to the position of General Manager.

[9] Subsequently in 1999, the Applicant joined Agilent Technologies Malaysia (hereinafter referred to as "Agilent"). Agilent was the predecessor of the 2nd Respondent.

[10] In 2005, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co LP and Silver Lake Partners LLC had acquired the Semiconductor Products Group from Agilent and formed the 2nd Respondent.

[11] Vide a letter dated 1 September 2005, the 2nd R