The appeal regarding dismissal legitimacy was rejected; the Industrial Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction.

Introduction

[1] This an appeal by the appellants/applicants against the learned High Court Judge's ["the learned HCJ"] decision dismissing the appellants/applicants' application seeking to quash the award of the Industrial Court No 422 of 2015 [[2015] MELRU 422] dated 13 April 2015.

[2] For ease of reference, parties will be referred to as they were in the proceedings before the High Court.

Background

[3] The applicants were the former employees of the 1st respondent and were employed as drivers to transport gas from Malaysian Oxygen to various places in West Malaysia. The applicants were paid allowances per trip in accordance with the distance they travel outstation based on the 'Manual System'.

[4] In November 2006, the Manual System was changed to a computerised system called 'LINDIZ'. As a result of this change, a dispute arose between the applicants and the 1st respondent.

[5] On 4 January 2007, about 40 to 50 of the 1st respondent's employees [including the applicants) gathered at Shapadu Rest Area refusing to resume work. Despite several approaches by the 1st respondent, the employees refused to report back to work, resulting in a deadlock.

[6] When the employees continued to refuse to report for duty, the 1st respondent started to issue termination letters dated 8 January 2007. The termination letter, inter alia, states as follows:

"You have categorically refused to perform work effective from 4 October 2007 despite repeated request and appeals by... for you to commence work, however you and others still refused to commence work thus causing an enormous failure due to your action. Your concerted act of illegal gathering is also deemed as an act of illegal strike. This act of defiance by you and others is viewed very seriously by management and under the said circumstances, we have no alternative but to dismiss you with immediate effect."

[7] Thereafter, 47 employees appealed to the 1st respondent, and their appeals were accepted by the 1st respondent.

[8] The applicants then filed a representation under s 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 to the Industrial Relations Department and their representation was referred to the Industrial Court for an adjudication by the Minister under s 20(3) of the .

[9] After a full trial, the Industrial Court had dismissed the applicants' claims. The applicants then filed an application to the High Court, to quash the decision of the Industrial Court, and was similarly dismissed.

The Findings Of The High Court

[10] The learned HCJ found that the only issue raised by the applicants is that they have been dismissed by the 1st respondent on 4 January 2007 but the Industrial Court made a finding of fact that they were not dismissed on 4 January 2007.

[11] The learned HCJ also found that the Industrial Court did not make an error in law when it decided that the date of dismissal is different from that in the Minister's reference and that the applicants' dismissal was reasonable as they were involved in an illegal strike.

[12] Further the learned HCJ found that the Minister's reference to the Industrial Court is on the issue of dismissal that is whether the applicants were dismissed by the 1st respondent with just cause and excuse and not on the actual date of the dismissal of the applicants.

The Law

[13] It is trite law that the specific finding of facts by the learned HCJ as a trier of facts should not be disturbed by an appellate Court such as this Court herein unless that finding was plainly wrong: Ming Holdings (M) Sdn Bhd v. Tuan Syed Azahari Noh Shahabudin & Anor, [2010] 4 MLJ 577;

[14] We were mindful of the limited role of the