The Claimant commenced employment with the Company in October 1979 He was promoted as a Product Support Manager on 17th October 1983. In February 1986, his services were terminated by company letter ( Court Exhibit CL-'G' ) dated 13th February 1986 the material part of which is reproduced here below:

"Mr Valen Noel Yap

Product Support Manager

Product Support Department

Petaling Jaya

13 February 1986

Dear Sir,

RETRENCHMENT

In view of the re-organization in the Graphics Division, we regret to inform you that the Company has to retrench you with effect from 15 February 1986.

Sgd: Nordin Mohd Hassan PJK

General Manager - Group Personnel "

It is the contention of the claiment that " the puported retrechmnet in the circumsances is a disguised dismissal". In support of this contention, he pointed to the following sequence of eventts in his Statement of Case:

a). He stayed as Product Support Manager Until, early October 1985 when the position was given by the company to one Billy Tan who joined the company after that.

b). When Billy Tan was made the Product Support Manager, he (the Claimant ) was designed the Warehouse Manager.

c). On 20th december 1985 a stock-taking of the warehouse was carried out by the company as a result of which the Claimant was given notice in writing (Exhibit CL- 'E' dated 13th January 1986) - to give an explanation in writing of shortages discovered in the warehouse stock.

d) He gave the required explanation in writing on 23rd January 1986 - (Exhibit CL-'F').

e) He was subsequently purportedly retrenched on 13th February 1986 and one Baba Mat Yasin, his subordinate, replaced him.

The position of the company is this: The Claimant was trasferred (from the Machinery Division) to the Graphics Division of the company in october 1983 as the Product Support Manager reporting to the Departmental Manager of the Agfa-Gevaert Department. In early July 1985, the Graphics Division was reorganised and the fuctions of the two product Support Managers (Agfa-Gevaert and printing respectively) were merged, upgraded into full departmental status and put under the managership of Billy Tan. As a result, the claimant was redesigned as the warehouse manager reporting to the Administration Manager in the Graphics Division. The company asserts that the claimant was properly retrenched on 13th February 1986, that he was never replaced and the post was abolished. It also calims taht together with the Claimant the Company had since 1986 retrenched thirty (30) other employees, five of whom reported directly to the claimant.

In this case, the Court is of course concerned only with the issue of the "retrenchment-dismissal" of the Claimant- wheter it was based on genuine redundancy, the Court would still have to consider whether the pricipal reason for which he was selected for dismissal was justified in industrial law and whether he was selected for dismissal and clauses 20,21,22,23 and 24 of the code of conduct for Industrial Harmony in general.

The facts and background which emerged from the hearing of the case are these: In mid-1985 two significant events took place in the Graphic division of the cmpany. The first was the filure and final closing down of one of its three departments the Data Systems Department of which encik Billy Tan (Witness CW-3) was the manager of the Printing Department of the Division, Encik Chan Seng Lee, in tesimony stated inter alia:

" I reorganised the Division it was decided taht both tae AG and Printing Departments Should focus their attention on marketing and distribution. The managers of AG and Printing would be relieved of their responsibilities and duties in credit control admin and product support fuctions. We then combined the product support functions (of the two departments) into one operating department. And because of this integration and by vitue of the tremendous increased responsibilities, Product support was elevated into a full department instead of being a subordinate unit handled individually b