The Co-operative Societies Commission lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes concerning wrongful termination of employment under the Co-operative Societies Act 1993.

[1] This appeal arises from the decision of the High Court dated 16 June 2016 dismissing the appellant's application for judicial review. In their application, the appellant, a co-operative society named Koperasi Serbausaha Makmur Berhad ('KOSMA'), had sought orders of certiorari as well as declaratory relief pertaining to the decision of the Suruhanjaya Koperasi, the 3rd respondent ('the Commission') to refer the complaints of the respondents ('the respondents') of wrongful dismissal and defamation, to a tribunal ('tribunal') to be adjudicated upon. The certiorari order and declaratory relief sought are much in the same vein, namely that the respondents' complaints to the tribunal relating to wrongful dismissal, be set aside or declared illegal and void.

[2] The singular points of significance in this appeal relate to the following issues:

(i) When the employment of an employee of a co-operative society is terminated, resulting in a dispute, is the Commission conferred with the jurisdiction by the Co-operative Societies Act 1993 ('the Act'), to determine such a dispute relating to a complaint of wrongful termination of employment?

(ii) This turns on the construction to be accorded to s 82(1) of the Act, more particularly the phrase "a dispute touching on the management or business" of the co-operative society, KOSMA.

The precise issue requiring determination is whether the phrase "a dispute touching on the management or business" includes the settlement or adjudication of disputes relating to the wrongful termination of employment of co-operative society employees, as in the case with the respondents here.

(iii) The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in M Arulandan v. Malaysian Co-Operative Insurance Society Ltd , [1987] 1 MLJ 485 ; [1987] CLJ (Rep) 44 ('Arulandan'), held that the 'dispute', namely the complaints of wrongful termination by the respondents, fell within the ambit of the phrase "a dispute touching on the management or business". The effect of the High Court's decision was to find that the 3rd respondent is clothed with jurisdiction to determine or adjudicate upon claims of wrongful termination of employment by officers and/or employees of KOSMA. Accordingly KOSMA's judicial review application, which was premised on the contention that the Commission had no such jurisdiction or power, had failed. The dispute was to be determined by a tribunal set up pursuant to a recommendation by the Commission to the Minister under s 83 of the Act;

(iv) We determined and held otherwise, namely that the complaints of wrongful termination or unfair dismissal of employment of the respondents do not fall within the purview of the phrase "dispute touching on the management or business" of the co-operative society. The net result of our decision was to hold that the Commission did not possess jurisdiction over disputes of this nature. It was not therefore empowered to either deal with the dispute itself, or to refer the dispute to the tribunal established under s 83(1) of the Act to resolve or adjudicate upon the dispute.

(v) We reached this decision for a few reasons. First, we concluded that the facts of the present case are distinguishable from Arulandan because in that case, the employee lodged a grievance in respect of disciplinary action taken against him by the co-operative society. However his employment was never terminated and he remained at all times an officer of the co-operative society/company. He only sought relief against disciplinary action. To that extent, the case was distinguishable.

(vi) We were further persuaded by the fact that Arulandan was decided