The Applicant in this case applied for an order of Certiorari to quash the Award of the Industrial Court No. 132 of 1997 dated 25th March 1997.

The facts of the case are as follows. The 1st Respondent was employed by the Applicant as an Accounting Clerk. She was first appointed on 1st August 1989 and was dismissed by the Applicant on 26th March 1992. At the material time the 1st Respondent was posted at the Applicant's station in Kerteh, Trengganu. Sometime in January 1992 the Applicant's Head office in Kuala Lumpur was investigating into certain malpractices in the Accounts division of the Kerteh station in which the 1st Respondent was one of the employees. It all began when the Management received a copy of an office automation (OA) note ourportedly sent by Anuar Buang to Haji Aladdin Hashim both of whom were employed in the Accounts division together with the 1st Respondent in Kerteh Station. The OA was dated 12th April 1991. In the course of an investigation carried out in January 1992 by a Security Manager from the Kuala Lumpur Headquarters together with the Accounts Division Manager of the Kerteh Station, statements from the employees in the Accounts Division in Kerteh Station including the 1st Respondent were taken. As a result of the investigation the 1st Respondent was charged before a Board of Inquiry held at Kuala Lumpur Headquarters. The charges against the 1st Respondent read as follows

"1. That you received $400.00 from Aladdin bin Mohd. Hashim, knowing that this sum was part of the money received from Company's contractors, Oilfield Resources Sdn. Bhd. or its representatives in return for assistance rendered in relation to payment of that contractor's invoice in contravention of the Company's Gift and Entertainment Policy and the Conflict of Interest Policy.

2. That you concealed and failed to disclose to the Company's Management, the existence of irregular business practices and/or violation by employee and/or yourself, of the above-mentioned Company'spolicies."

The Board of Inquiry found the 1st Respondent guilty of both charges. As a result of that she was dismissed by the Applicant. The 1st Respondent then made representations under s. 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 to the Minister for Human Resources alleging that the dismissal was without just cause or excuse. The Minister then referred the matter to the Industrial Court for an aware. After a hearing the Industrial Court held that the 1st Respondent's dismissal was without just and excuse and directed the Applicant to reinstate her to her former position not later than 2nd May 1997 without any loss of whatsoever benefits she had been receiving from the Applicant before she was dismissed.

It was against this Award of the Industrial Court that the Applicant made this application.

Before I proceed to consider the merits of this application I cannot help but to comment on the charges made by the Applicant against the 1st Respondent. Needless to say these charges are criminal or semi-criminal in nature. It is a basic requirement that in a criminal or semi-criminal charge it must contain the date, time and place the offence was alleged to have taken place. These are material particulars to be contained in the charge in order to enable the accused person to prepare his Defence adequately. Without stating the particulars of date, time and place the accused person is put in a prejudicial position to prepare his Defence and answer the charge properly. It is therefore mandatory that those material particulars are stated without which the charge is bad and on such reason alone the accused person can be discharged or acquitted of the charge. On an appeal, a finding of guilt by a lower Court or Tribunal based on a defective charge for want of material particulars, can reverse the finding of guilt of the lower Court and acquit the accused. It is therefore of utmost important that such charges are properly framed so that all the material pa