[1] Arising out of a dispute between Rank Xerox Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") and Chong Siw Sing @ Chong Lian Hwa (hereinafter referred to as "the claimant") over the dismissal of the claimant, the Industrial Court handed down an award (Award No: 99/89 [[1989] 1 MELR 407]) dated 14 June 1989 ordering that -

a) The Company shall reinstate the claimant to his formerposition as Marketing Manager of the Company without loss of seniority, service and benefits or otherwise.

b) The claimant shall report back to the Company for work on Monday, the 26 June 1989, failing which he shall be deemed to have left the service of the Company on his own accord on that date, ie, 26 June 1989.

c) The Company shall pay the claimant full backwages in accordance with his terms and conditions of employment and (d) below of this Award for the period 1 March 1986 to June 1989.

d) The Company shall give the claimant in full all the other benefits and allowances in his terms and conditions of employment which would have accrued to him had he not been dismissed and he shall be treated as if had benefitted from that benefit or improvement on and from the date on which he would have done so but for being dismissed.

e) All monies due to be paid to the claimant by the Company inaccordance with this Award shall be paid to him within one month of the date of his reinstatement.

[2] On 25 August 1989, the claimant lodged a complaint under s 56(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (the Act) that the Company had failed to comply with paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) at p 13 of the Award. It then prayed for an order of non-compliance against the Company. The company, however, denied that it had committed any breach of the Award. It also contended that-

the claimant is attempting, by way of the complaint, to seek aninterpretation of Award no: 99/89 which this Honourable Court, in an application under s 56(1), is not seized with jurisdiction to do so.

[3] It then urged us to dismiss the claimant's complaint.

[4] This case of non-compliance was first heard on 2 January 1990and based on the Supreme Court decision in Holiday Inn, Kuala Lumpur v. National Union of Hotel,Bar & Restaurant Workers, [1988] 1 MLJ 306, the parties agreed that this case be stood down in order to enable the claimant to file his application under s 33(1) of the Act, as it was then held by the Supreme Court that the Industrial Court has no jurisdiction to interpret and determine any issue raised under s 56(1) of the Act .

[5] The claimant field his application for interpretation under s 33(1) of the Act on 2 January 1990 which was fixed for hearing on 10 February 1990. In this application, the claimant invited us to interpret the Award No: 99/89 in the following manner -

That the said provisions should be interpreted in its naturaland primary meaning entitling the claimant to all benefits, monetary or otherwise that he would have enjoyed had he not been dismissed from the services of the Company on the 28th February 1986.

[6] If the interpretation of the claimant was correct, then he said he was entitled to the following:

i) His monthly commission which amounted to a minimum of $500 per month.

ii) Payment in lieu of outstanding annual leave untaken forthe period 1986 to 1989.

iii) His balance of half month salary paid during hissuspension period from 19 February 1986 to 28 February 1986.

iv) EPF contributions by your client for the period 1 March 1986 to June 26 1989. This is especially so in view of paragraph (c) of the above award.

v) Annual increment our client would have got during 1987,1988 and 1989. In other words, his last drawn salary will be more than $5,000.00 per month for computing backwages. In this connection, we refer to the paragraph (c) of the above award in particular the words "....... or improvement."

vi) Since our client has since resigned from the services ofyour client, which resignation has been accepted by your client vide your client's letter of 7 July 1989, s