Eusoff Chin CJ:

On 22 March 1995 we had quashed the order of the Industrial Court with costs to the appellant here and below, and adjourned this appeal for further arguments to 1 April 1995 on consequential reliefs.

The appellant (the claimant) was first employed by the respondent (the Society) on 5 May 1986 as Trainee General Manager at a salary of RM5,500 per month plus a car for his use. He was dismissed by the Society on 31 July 1987. After an intervention by the Registrar of Societies under Part V of the Industrial Relations Act, 1967 (the Act) he was re-employed by the Society as Credit Control and Divisional Manager effective on 1 April 1987 but with a reduced salary of RM3,950 per month plus a car.

But the claimant was again dismissed on 30 April 1988 vide the society's letter dated 20 April 1988 (the second dismissal). At the time of his second dismissal he was the Senior Divisional Manager (Debt Recovery and Credit Control).

The claimant made a representation to the Director-General Industrial Relations under s. 20(1) of the Act , claiming that he was dismissed by the Society without just cause or excuse, and asking that he be reinstated to his former post, failing which he should be entitled to reasonable compensation for loss of earnings, etc.

The Minister of Labour, acting under s. 20(3) of the Act referred the claimant's representation to the Industrial Court for an award.

After hearing the case, the Industrial Court made an award on 16 September 1991 videAward No. 278 of. 1991 wherein the Industrial Court held that the claimant was dismissed with just cause or excuse.

The reason for the dismissal of the claimant by the Society was contained in the letter of dismissal dated 20 April 1988 and was as follows:

Taking into account the financial and economic losses and economic recession suffered by the Society and in line with the decision of the Board of MCCS on 11 April 1988 to close the Debt Recovery and Credit Control Division, I am directed by the Board to terminate your employment as Senior Division Manager (Debt Recovery and Credit Control) with the Society by giving you three months' salary in lieu of notice in accordance with reg. 25(1) of the Society's Staff Rules and Regulations.

Your last day of service shall be 30 April 1988.

The claimant in his statement of case before the Industrial Court raised the issue of bias and pleaded in paras. 2(d) and 4(a) to 4(c) as follows:

2(d). The claimant contends that he was a victim of partiality and vindictiveness by the CEO and the Chairman of the Society for the reasons appearing in paras. 3 and 4 of this statement.

4(a). Encik Shamsudin had set his mind to get rid of the claimant for obvious reasons, i.e. knowing that the claimant was not appointed as CEO he would be a threat to the position of Encik Shamsudin if the claimant was retained in the Society. He quickly succeeded in removing the claimant by having the Chairman and some directors, under his control.

4(b). The claimant's services were again terminated on 30 April 1988 within a duration of 1 year after the reinstatement in April 1987. The treatment given to the claimant a family man in his mid forties, was like a child-play.

Copies of the letter written by the CEO to the claimant and the claimant's reply dated 19 February 1988 marked "RR 9" and "RR 10" respectively are annexed hereto which exposes the predetermined mind of Encik Shamsudin to get rid of the claimant though the matters in the letter of warning from the CEO to the claimant were simply trivial.

4(c). The claimant during the course of his duties had discovered many abuses of the Society's funds and authority particularly matters relating to (1) MA Pools for which Encik Shamsudin approved funds without the Board's sanction, (2) Sale of St. Michaels franchise which was signed off by the Chairman without much concern for the interests of the Society and (3) the Komart fiasco for which Mr. Mathimugam and the Board is accounta