Wan Suleiman SCJ:

The appellant Company had dismissed the respondent, its Project Manager, with effect from 23 February 1984. The company did so by sending Choong a letter dismissing him with immediate effect.

Choong contends that the dismissal was without just cause or excuse and/or alternatively was unfair labour practice. Further or in the alternative Choong contends that the dismissal was contrary to the principles of natural justice and therefore void, and therefore prayed for reinstatement to his former position in the company without loss in salary, monetary or otherwise.

The reference to the Industrial Court was made under s. 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967.

Before the Industrial Court the case for the Company was that on various occasions it had pointed out to Choong his casual and indifferent attitude towards his responsibilities. It also alleged that he had not shown any improvement despite the admonition and in addition instigated or provoked dissatisfaction among fellow workers. This, it said had caused it loss and therefore the dismissal was justified in law.

The Industrial Court heard witnesses both for the appellant and for Encik Choong and after due deliberation the following award was handed down by the Chairman (who sat alone):

1. I find that there is evidence that the Claimant had talked about the low salaries and low increment to the staff in the Company, and this to my mind brings about a bad effect among the staff concerned, so I uphold the dismissal of the Claimant by the Company.

2. The Claimant had committed a misconduct and before such dismissal took effect the Company did not hold any inquiry at all. Though I uphold the order of dismissal of the Claimant the effective date of such dismissal takes effect on the last date of the hearing; therefore the Claimant is entitled to backwages from the date of dismissal 23 February 1984 till 28 April 1986, i.e., 26 months and 4 days at the rate of RM2,400 a month ... RM62,720.

3. The Company is to pay this sum within one (1) month from the date of this Award after tax clearance.

This award was referred under s. 33A of the Industrial Relations Act to the High Court on question of law, the question or issue of law being: (1) does the Industrial Court have jurisdiction to award compensation to a workman whose dismissal has been upheld by the Court?, and (2) does it have jurisdiction to amend the date of dismissal of the workman so that the workman is deemed to be in employment until the date of the award and thereby become entitled to backwages?

Regrettably there was no written Grounds of Judgment. At the end of the hearing the learned Judge recorded a cryptic note which we set out hereunder:

Section 20(1) Where a workman ... considers that he has been dismissed without just cause or excuse by his employer ... these words include not only the reason for the dismissal but also the manner of the dismissal more particularly as in this case rules of natural justice not observed in that the enquiry was not held. What the Industrial Court Award means is that after its own inquiry there were reasons for the dismissal but as the inquiry was not held, the dismissal was without just cause or excuse.

Hence the order for payment of backwages because until then it could not be said that the workman had been dismissed without just cause or excuse.

The Secondary order would be no reinstatement - hence no award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Choice of words by Industrial Court may be unfortunate but basis of decision is correct in law.

Application dismissed with costs.

We have perforce to make do with this.

Mr. Das for the appellant submits that there are two issues of jurisdiction.

It is common ground that (1) the worker's dismissal was justified and (2) that there was no domestic order or inquiry.

He contends that there is no jurisdiction under s. 30 of the Industrial Relations Act for the Industrial Court to award relief to a worker whose dism