This is an application by the applicant for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Industrial Court, in Award No. 677 of 1998 made on 29th December, 1998. The Industrial Court found that the first respondent had been constructively dismissed and the dismissal was without just cause or excuse and ordered the applicant to pay backwages and compensation in the total sum of RM86,950.00.

The relevant facts giving rise to this application are as follows:

The first respondent commenced employment with the applicant on the 1st August, 1993 at its Wellhead/Xmas Tree/Valve Maintenance as a Workshop Supervisor with a basic salary of RM4,000.00 per month. Upon expiry of his contract, he was offered a permanent employment as a Technical Manager in the Repair and Maintenance Division, effectively on 1st August, 1996 with a basic salary of RM4,200.00 per month. He had also received RM500.00 housing allowance.

2

The problem between the first respondent and the applicant started on 21st August, 1997, when the Director cum - Manager of the applicant, Mr. Wee Khea Peng (COW1), held a meeting attended by the first respondent, Mr. Kevin Franks (the Consultant), Mr. Patrick Green (the Mechanist) and Encik Mohsin Abdullah (the Sales Manager) where they had been informed that their salaries would be reduced by 30%. The reason given was that the applicant incurred losses in excess of RM500,000.00. The reduction in salary by 30% was confirmed by the applicant in a letter dated 25th August, 1997, addressed to the first respondent.

The first respondent considered the applicant's decision of reducing his salary by 30% amounted to a repudiation of his contract of employment. On 2nd September, 1997 the first respondent wrote to the applicant intimating to the applicant that he treated himself as being dismissed by the applicant. The first respondent then made representations to the Director General of Industrial Relation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relation Act ("the Act"). As there was no settlement being reached between the parties, the Honourable Minister for Human Resources (the Minister)

3

referred the first respondent's representations to the Industrial Court under section 20(3) of the Act.

The Industrial Court found that the reduction of the first respondent's salary was a variation of the terms of the first respondent employment. According to the learned Chairman, the variation is a fundamental breach and amounting to a repudiation since it goes to the root of the contract. Thus, she concluded that the first respondent was constructively dismissed, a dismissal without just cause or excuse.

Thus, the applicant's application is for judicial review. The correct statement of the current law relating to judicial review may be found in the decision of the Federal Court in the case of R. Ramachandmn v. The Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor. [1997] 1 MLJ 145, In that case, Edgar Joseph Jr. FCJ, relying on the decision of Lord Diplock in the case of Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, adopted three grounds under which a decision is amendable to judicial review namely:

4

(a) Illegality - that the decision-maker had failed to keep strictly

within the perimeter of its powers;

(b) Irrationality - that the decision was so outrageous in its

defiance of logic or accepted moral standard that no sensible

person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided

could have arrived at it; and

(c) Procedural Impropriety - that the decision-maker had failed to

observe basic rules of natural justice and or procedural rules.

It can be seen that the circumstances under which the High Court can interfere with the decision of the Industrial Court are limited. It must be for good reasons. The reasons given by Raja Azlan Shah FCJ (now His Majesty the Sultan of Perak) in the Federal Court case of Non-Metallic Mineral Products Manufacturing Employees Union v. South East Asia Firebricks Sdn. Bhd. [