Nik Hashim J:

This is an application by Credit Corporation (M) Bhd the applicant, for an order of certiorari to remove and quash Award No. 465 of 1997 dated 1 October 1997 by the Industrial Court, the 2nd respondent. The award was made pursuant to s 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (the 'Act'), whereby Choo Kam Sing, the 1st respondent, claimed that he had been dismissed without just cause and excuse. The Industrial Court acceded to the claim.

The 1st respondent commenced employment with the applicant as a credit officer on 13 January 1977. At the time of retrenchment on 28 August 1992, the 1st respondent was holding the post of National Sales Manager, drawing a monthly salary of RM9,397. The applicant stated in the letter of termination dated 28 August 1992 (p. 45 of encl. 3) that the termination of the 1st respondent's service was necessitated by reason of a reorganisation of the applicant which resulted in the 1st respondent's job function within the company becoming redundant.

In his award, the learned Chairman of the Industrial Court at p. 19 of the award said:

of the employer to reorganise his business based on reasons of economy and better management of the business. The Court is only concerned that such scheme is carried out bona fide.

To justify its action as bona fide the company (applicant) put forth its stand that the reorganisation was undertaken with the principal purpose of ensuring a cost efficient business necessitated by reason of the decline in profits for years 1990 to 1992 and the corresponding increase in staff costs over the period. However, the claimant (1st respondent) together with 8 other senior managers were selected as persons who should be retrenched on the basis that the company (applicant) was top heavy.

There is evidence from documents produced by the company (applicant) that for the years 1989 to 1993 the company (applicant) continued experiencing profit after taxation. COW-1 admitted that during the years 1991, 1992 and 1993 dividends were paid and the company (applicant) was top heavy as a result of the retention and redeployment of staff by the previous management. It is obvious the reorganisation was not for the sole purpose of ensuring costefficient business but more towards getting rid (of) senior managers who had been recruited under the previous management. The evidence of COW-1, taken as a whole, does not in my view, show the reorganisation was bona fide.

It is also noted in COW-1's testimony that the savings involved in retrenching all eleven senior executives would be saving a staff cost of RM783,289. per year. COW-1 admitted that the expenses incurred in implementing a new salary scheme and in paying bonuses would be approximately RM1.7 million.

Ultimately it is the finding of this Court that although the services of the claimant (1st respondent) were terminated for redundancy there was no prewarning given to the claimant (1st respondent), no decrease in the activities in the department he was heading and the Claimant's (1st respondent's) duties were taken by managers who worked under him.

For the reasons given above, I find the dismissal of the claimant (1st respondent,) was without just cause or excuse.

The applicant is now seeking to quash the decision of the Industrial Court on eleven (11) grounds which the applicant claims come under the recognised grounds of irrationality and procedural impropriety. I propose to deal with them together.

Before me, Mr R Abraham, on behalf of the applicant, among other things, submitted that the job functions of the 1st respondent were already being effectively c