The Sarawak Commercial Banks Association ('the applicant') filed an application by way of notice of originating motion (encl 7) for:

An order for certiorari to remove into this court for the purpose of its being quashed that part of the award relating to art 19 — rates of pay — on pp 3 to 8 and on p 14 and appendices 1 and 2 in the first schedule of Industrial Court Award No 56 of 1989.

The grounds as set forth in the copy of the statement filed on 25 May 1989 are:

(i) the order made in art 19(2) on p 14 of the award is in breach of s 30(7) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967,

(ii) the findings made in para 8 on p 7 of the award are erroneous which led to absurd results and/or reached results absurdly;

(iii) the Industrial Court's refusal to admit/amend its error in the computation of CPI increase in Award No 9/89 and its persistence to follow its own said Award No 9/89 as authority to apply to Award No 56/89 shows that the court was biased in its approach to the issue;

(iv) the findings and the decision arrived at by the Industrial Court is perverse and so devoid of plausible justification that no reasonable body of persons could have reached them.

The applicant and the Sarawak Bank Employees' Union ('the respondent') had entered into a collective agreement relating to the terms and conditions of service executed on 26 June 1985 for the period 1985–1987 and taken cognizance of by the Industrial Court on 18 September 1985 vide Cognizance No 248/85. When the agreement expired on 31 December 1987, the respondent submitted a fresh proposal to the applicant with a view to entering into a new collective agreement. The parties had not been able to conclude a new agreement and their dispute was referred to the Industrial Court for adjudication by the Minister of Labour under s 26(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ('the Act'). The Minister of Labour made the reference on 15 July 1988. It is agreed that it is a trade dispute within the meaning of s 26(2) of the Act. It is also agreed that the law to be considered in this application is as at 15 July 1988. The dispute was heard by the Industrial Court on 20 and 21 February 1989 and Award No 56/89 dated 15 April 1989 was handed down on 5 May 1989.

At the hearing before the Industrial Court, the parties agreed to follow all the terms and conditions of employment for bank employees in Peninsular Malaysia in the case of Malayan Commercial Banks Association v National Bank Employees (Award No 9/89) (unreported), except:

(1) art 7 — leave on trade union business;

(2) art 19 — rates of pay;

(3) art 24 — medical benefits;

(4) art 27 — meal allowance;

(5) art 30 — sick leave;

(6) art 33 — retirement benefits; and

(7) art 36 — new technology.

However, in the course of the proceedings, the parties further agreed to arts 7, 24 and 30, thus leaving only arts 19, 27, 33 and 36 for adjudication. At the hearing of the application before me, the applicant only confined itself to art 19, ie rates of pay, and the consequential orders that will follow if the applicant succeeds and also the issue of retrospective order made by the Industrial Court. As for art 33, retirement benefits, this issue has been referred to the Supreme Court and the parties are awaiting the outcome of the Supreme Court decision and hence no decision was made by the Industrial Court.

In attacking the Industrial Court decision in respect of art 19 (rates of pay), the applicant is essentially relying on:

(a) the retrospective order made to be effective from 1 January 1988 is in breach of s 30(7) of the Act; and

(b) the biased computation of CPI increase in Award No 9/89 as authority to apply to the present Award No 56/89.

Is the restropective order in breach of s 30(7) of the Act?

It is to be borne in mind that the aborted agreement is a renewal of the previous collective agreement which expired on 31 December 1987. In effect, the new agreement is to commence on 1 January 1988 but for the failure to reach th