Vincent Ng Kim Khoay J:

[1] The first respondent was an employee of the applicant. It was alleged by the applicant that since 1988, the first respondent was frequently absenting from work without leave. The first respondent was dismissed after the applicant had duly complied with the caution system incorporated into the collective agreement (exh MRH6 of encl 1) ('CA'), the common ground of both parties being that no domestic inquiry was held before such dismissal. The first respondent then claimed unfair dismissal and the matter was referred to the Industrial Court under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ('the Act').

[2] The applicant's main contention is that the Industrial Court had embarked on a mission to interpret the CA and general conditions ('GC') governing the employment of the first respondent by holding that the two conditions - at p 13 of the CA, under the caption 'Union Representation at Enquiries' and at p 21 of the GC under the caption 'Discipline', para 2, in s XXI - made it mandatory for the applicants to hold a domestic enquiry.

[3] There was no express conditions in the CA or the GC requiring the applicants to hold a domestic enquiry. However, the