Shaik Daud Ismail JCA:

This is an appeal from the decision of the High Court which had on 18 May 1998, dismissed the appellant's application for certiorari to quash the award of the Industrial Court handed down on 30 September 1997.

The facts of the case are that the respondent commenced employment on 1 June 1980 with the appellant as Operations Manager of the Operations Department of the Crop Protection Division which was originally known as the Agro Chemical Division. He had four subordinates under him namely, assistant manager, assistant executive and two general clerks.

On 1 January 1988, the appellant decided to split the operations department into two, one was called Production Department and the other Logistic and Sales Administration Department. The respondent's former assistant manager, one Loh Chee Kong, was appointed as the manager of the Production Department and the respondent was appointed as the Logistic and Sales Administration Manager.

Everything appeared to be going on smoothly thereafter until 17 September 1990, the appellant wrote to the respondent informing him that his employment was terminated with effect from the date of the letter giving two reasons (1) that the appellant expected to suffer operational loss in excess of over one million ringgit for 1990 and (2) that the respondent's position with the appellant was redundant.

Naturally the respondent was not happy with this move and he made representations to the Director General of Industrial Relations (DGIR) that he had been dismissed without just cause or excuse and sought reinstatement. The representations were made pursuant to s. 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (the Act).

The DGIR having failed to affect a settlement, reported the matter to the Minister of Human Resources who in turn referred it to the Industrial Court for an enquiry pursuant to s. 20(3) of the Act.

After a full enquiry, the Industrial Court found that on the evidence of witnesses, the respondent's dismissal was without just cause or excuse and in lieu of re-instatement, the court awarded the respondent as follows:

a) Arrears of salary of RM5,350 per month from 17 September 1990 to the last day of the hearing on the case ie, 23 December 1996 together with the 13th month salary for the year 1990 to 1996, less two months salary in lieu of notice which was paid subject to EPF deductions; b) 16 months salary at RM5,350 per month as compensation in lieu of reinstatement being one month salary every year of completed service.

It was the finding of the Industrial Court that the appellant "failed to make out a case to justify the dismissal of the respondent." The court found on the materials before it that the claim by the appellant that the post held by the respondent was redundant and was not convincing as the court found as a fact that the workload of the respondent remained almost the same even though the turnover of the sale was reduced, and even after the respondent was dismissed the job previously carried out by the respondent were shared by three other staff.

Another reason given was that the appellant did not adhere to the guidelines in the Code of Conduct for Industrial Harmony in that the appellant failed to show any convincing evidence that it tried its best to find some other jobs for the respondent within the company.

After reviewing the award of the Industrial Court, the High Court was of the view that the Industrial Court had made a proper evaluation of all the evidence before it and therefore the High Court was of the view that the Industrial Court's conclusion that the dismissal of the respondent was without just cause or excuse, was proper. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the award and dismissed the appellant's application with costs.

It is our view that although the High Court is not acting in its appellate capacity in reviewing awards of the Industrial Court, it nevertheless should not interfere in the Industrial Court's fi