Shaik Daud Ismail JCA:

[1] This is an appeal from the decision of the High Court at Kuala Lumpur in dismissing the appellant's application for an order of certiorari and mandamus. The appellant by an ex parte Originating Motion dated 2 April 1994, applied for an order of certiorari to remove into the High Court for the purpose of it being quashed the decision of the 1st respondent dated 23 February 1994 and for an order of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to exercise his discretion according to law pursuant to s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ('the Act').

[2] The facts leading to the appellant making the above application are that the appellant was originally appointed the General Sales Manager of Guinness Malaysia Sdn Bhd on 1 September 1986 and continued to hold that appointment until around November 1989. Sometime around November 1989 there was a merger between Guinness Malaysia Sdn Bhd and another prominent brewery, the Malayan Brewery Bhd. This merger resulted in the formation of Guinness Anchor Bhd, the 2nd respondent herein. After the merger, the appellant continued his employment in the 2nd respondent in the capacity of General Manager Sales.

[3] By a letter dated 18 December 1992 from the Personnel Director of the 2nd respondent, the appellant was informed that his position as General Manager Sales had become redundant and that his services would be terminated with effect from 1 February 1993. As General Manager Sales the appellant received five principal reports from senior managers whose terms with the 2nd respondent, and before that with Guinness and Malayan Brewery, exceeded that of the appellant. The 2nd respondent contends that, after the merger, it became clear that the senior managers could function efficiently and independently without having to report to an intermediate, ie, the appellant, who was in fact below the Sales Director The Sales Director was the person who makes the decisions after considering the reports from the General Manager Sales. In the light of this the position of the General Manager Sales was therefore merely an intermediary from the managerial positions to the Sales Director As a result, two years after the merger, the 2nd respondent came to the conclusion that in order to achieve greater efficiency and to give independent control of the managerial positions, it would be more economical to do away with the so called intermediary position, namely the General Manager Sales. In view of this, 2nd respondent declared that the position of General Manager Sales was redundant.

[4] As the appellant's position was made redundant, the 2nd respondent offered a compensation of twenty-one months salary amounting to RM214,167 and in addition the appellant was offered the option to purchase the company vehicle which he was then using, valued at RM88,000, at 20% of the discounted price. This offer was made to appellant for his six years and five months term of service with 2nd respondent. In addition to this the 2nd respondent was also prepared to offer an additional six months salary. All these offers were out-rightly rejected by the appellant. The appellant contends that the reasons given for the disestablishment of his position was untenable and that he was victimised and made a subject of unfair labour practice, and was in fact dismissed without just cause or excuse under the guise of a restructure exercise.

[5] As a result of the termination of his services, the appellant made representations to the Director General of Industrial Relations (DG) under s 20(1) of the Act. The DG in his effort to effect a conciliation caused an inter partes meeting on 22 February 1993 between the appellant and the 2nd respondent. Apart from this inter partes meeting the DG also met separately representatives of the 2nd respondent. All these efforts were fruitless.

[6] Then by a letter dated 23 February 1993, the appellant was informed that the 1st respondent having considered the representation, dec