Redundancy requires actual proof of surplus labor, and dismissals must be justifiable and bona fide to be lawful.

Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim JCA:

Factual Background Of The Case

[1] Woo Vain Chan ("the appellant") commenced employment with Malayawata Steel Berhad (currently known as Ann Joo Steel Berhad) ("the respondent") on 10 August 2000 as Vice President (Investment and General Affairs).

[2] The respondent had investments in areas such as properties and palm oil estates.

[3] In August 2001, the respondent revised its existing structure wherein the appellant, under this reorganisation, was redesignated to the position of Vice President (Plantation and Property Investment Division) ("PPID") who was responsible for the daily operations of the new Plantation and Property Investment Division. In addition, the appellants main focus where his personal attendance was required was a set of tasks labelled under the heading "Special Tasks".

[4] Later, the respondent realised that none of the Special Tasks which formed the bulk of the appellants responsibilities had in fact materialised. The respondents investment in oil palm estate and properties did not have a competitive advantage in the above two sectors as it did not experience the benefit of economies of scale and also because it did not have the necessary expertise in the above two sectors.

[5] In view of the foregoing work requirement which the PPID performed, the respondent realised that the appellants position as Vice President was not warranted and justified as the work requirements were purely administrative and could easily be handled and performed by either a clerk or an agency.

[6] Vide a letter dated 30 October 2002, the appellant was informed that his services were no longer required by the respondent. Prior to this, the appellant was offered a voluntary separation scheme which was rejected by the appellant. Pursuant to the letter of termination, the appellant was nevertheless accorded with a lump sum payment of RM60,000.00 which was inclusive of payment in lieu of notice as well as his accrued annual increment.

[7] The appellant, being dissatisfied with his dismissal, had then filed a representation at the Industrial Relations Department under s 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 which subsequently referred the representation to the Industrial Court ("the IC").

[8] The Chairman of the IC ("CIC") in Award No 16 of 2013 dated 3 January 2013 ("the said Award") decided in favour of the appellant in ruling that the dismissal of the appellant was without just cause and excuse. The CIC thereafter ordered the respondent to pay the appellant back wages and compensation in lieu of reinstatement in the total sum of RM193,000.00.

[9] Aggrieved by the decision, the respondent filed an application for judicial review ("JR") to the High Court to quash the said Award.

[10] The learned High Court Judge ("HCJ") on 9 September 2013 allowed the respondents application for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the IC with costs. Thus this appeal before us by the appellant.

The Appeal

[11] We had heard the appeal and heard submissions by both learned counsel. We had sighted the records of appeal. From a perusal of the memorandum of appeal, the appellant contended, inter alia, that the learned HCJ erred in laws and/or facts when:

1. Interfering with the findings of fact made by the CIC that;

i. the dismissal of the appellant was without just cause and excuse;

ii. the dismissal of the appellant was not bona fide since the appellants position and function were still in existence;

iii. the appellants duties were taken over b