Low Hop Bing KMN J:

I. Application

This application in Encl. 6 prays for an order of certiorari to remove into this Court, for the purposes of it being quashed, the whole of the decision in Industrial Court Case No.2/3 - 591/88, award No.180 of 1993 dated 17 June 1993 ("the impugned award").

II. Facts And Chronology of Events

The applicant is a member company of the Malayan Agricultural Producers Association (MAPA) and the 1st respondent in Industrial Court award No.111/86 in Persatuan Pengeluar-Pengeluar Pertanian Tanah Melayu v. Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Ladang [1986] ILR 586 (award No.111/86).

Following acts of alleged misconduct, four workers employed by the applicant namely Ali bin Gula Mohamad, Athinaidu s/o Appalasamy, Kamin bin Nasimin and Mohamed bin A. Bakar ("the four workers") were by letters dated 15 September 1988, individually issued identical notices of domestic inquiry in respect of the charges contained therein. They were also suspended from work with immediate effect pending the outcome of investigations and the inquiry.

The domestic inquiry was held on 20, 21, 22, and 23 September 1988. After due inquiry, the four workers were found guilty of having incited and instigated workers of Ladang Simpang Rengam on 13 September 1988 from going to work on 14 September 1988. The four workers were recommended to be down-graded from tappers to general workers.

By letter dated 29 September 1988, the four workers were individually informed that;

i) they had been found guilty of misconduct;

ii) by way of punishment, they were downgraded to general workers with effect from 30 September 1988

iii) they were to report for work on 1 October 1988, and

iv) they may appeal against the downgrading decision in accordance with the redressal procedure as provided for in award No.111/86.

By a letter dated 29 September 1988, the four workers jointly informed the applicant that they were not satisfied with the applicant's decision to downgrade them and requested to meet the applicant on 30 September 1988 at 3.30 p.m. to resolve the matter. The applicant only received this letter on 1 October 1988. The applicant immediately informed each of the four workers that the meeting they had requested for will take place on 3 October 1988 at 3.30 p.m.

The meeting schedule on 3 October 1988 did not proceed as none of the four workers turned up.

By a letter dated 30 September 1988, the four workers jointly applied for leave until resolution of the dispute over the downgrading by the Kluang (branch) union committee.

By letter dated 1 October 1988, the applicant immediately informed the four workers individually that their leave application was not approved for failure to comply with the prescribed procedure for annual leave.

None of the four workers reported for work on 1 October 1988 as required.

Subsequently, the four workers also individually submitted leave application forms, dated 1 October 1988 respectively for three (3) days leave commencing from 1 October 1988 to 3 October 1988. The applicant only received these leave application forms on 1 October 1988 at 4.35 p.m. The four workers were individually informed that their applications were also not approved, when their applications were marked "NOT approved" on the said forms. The four workers did not report for work as required on 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 October 1988.

In the light of the above, by letter dated 7 October 1988, the applicant wrote to each of the four workers putting then on notice that:

i) their absence from work without prior permission after being informed of the rejection of their leave application amounted to serious misconduct for which disciplinary action could be taken.

ii) they were reminded to report for work on 8 October 1988; and

iii) they were warned that if they repeat their failure to report for work again, the applicant would consider that they were no longer interested in continuing with their employment and that they will be considered to have abando