[1] There are two related appeals before us. This appeal, Appeal No W-01-452-2011 ("Appeal No 452") and Appeal No.W-01-454-2011 ("Appeal No 454"). Both appeals were heard together. Appeal No 452 is by the Minister of Human Resources Malaysia against the decision of the High Court, which allowed the applicant's application for judicial review to quash the decision of the Minister of Human Resources, which has accorded recognition to the 2nd respondent in the High Court and Appeal No 454 is by National Union of Transport Equipment And Allied Industries Workers against the same decision.

[2] In Appeal No 452, the appellant was the 1st respondent in the High Court and in Appeal No 454 the appellant was the 2nd respondent in the High Court. Both appellants are appealing against the same order of the High Court granting the respondent's application for judicial review. The respondent in both appeals was the applicant before the High Court.

[3] For ease of reference, the parties in these two appeals shall be referred to by their respective names as in the record of appeals that is to say, the appellant in Appeal No 452 shall be referred to as "the Minister" and the appellant in Appeal No 454 ie National Union of Transport Equipment And Allied Industries Workers shall be referred to as "the Union". The respondent in both appeals, ie, Diamet Klang (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd shall be referred to as "the company".

[4] The company had filed an application for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Minister who was alleged to have accorded recognition to the Union to represent the workers of the company.

[5] The company's challenges are as follows:

(i) That the Minister have not made the required decision on the competency issue. It was alleged by the company that the decision was made by the Director General of Industrial Relations (the DGIR). It was also argued that, at the material time when the decision was made on the matter, the power to make such decision had been removed from the DGIR by virtue of the Amending Act A1322 with effect from 28 February 2008. That power now resides as a result of the said amendment solely with the Minister. It was submitted that apart from acting on the decision that was made by the DGIR, the Minister did not make any decision on his own.

(ii) That even if the decision was made within the purview of the law, the Minister was wrong in finding that the Union was competent to represent the workers of the company.

[6] The learned Senior Federal Counsel submitted that the Minister had acted within the bounds of his discretionary power and, therefore, his decision is final and shall not be questioned in any Court by virtue of s 9(6) Industrial Relations Act 1967 .

Findings Of The High Court

[7] The High Court allowed the company's application for judicial review and quashed the decision of the Minister. The High Court found that by the time the decision was made by the Minister in 2009, the law had been amended, whereby the role of the DGIR had been changed to that of merely ascertaining the circumstances pertaining to competence and not to decide on the same. The power to decide had been made to reside with the Minister only. The fact that the Minister had not exercised his mind in deciding the matter was quite clear in the submissions of the learned Senior Federal Counsel when it submitted thus:

"16. Berdasarkan maklumat-maklumat ini KPKS telah memutuskan bahawa pekerja Pemohon, termasuk di bawah skop keanggotaan Responden Kedua, dan dengan itu, layak diwakili oleh Responden Kedua.

17. Responden Pertama menghujahkan di dalam kes ini apabila Responden Pertama menerima keputusan KPKS beliau dan telah m