(read by Syed Othman F.J.): On December 24, 1976 and June 16, 1977 an industrial court assumed jurisdiction to hear the complaint of Lee Eng Kiat (respondent 1) and S. Balasuppramaniyam (respondent 2), the chief security guard and security guard respectively, that they had been dismissed without just cause or excuse by their employer, the appellants. It assumed jurisdiction on the ground that section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1967 (Act 177) does not impose an absolute obligation on a workman to make the representation within one month of the dismissal It also rejected the view of counsel that the word "may" refers to the discretion vested in the respondents either to bring the matter to the industrial court or to the common law court.

Section 20(1) of the Act is as follows:

"Where a workman who is not a member of a trade union of workmen considers that he has been dismissed without just cause or excuse by his employer he may, within one month of the dismissal, make representations in writing to the Director General to be reinstated in his former employment; the representations may be filed at the office of the Director General nearest to th