1 The crux of the case in the matter before this Court is whether the 35 teachers (the Claimants)hadtherighttocontinueintheir employment when their contracts of employment for a fixed term of two years had expired by effluxion of time and were not renewed by their employer (the School). This concerns the relevance of the established and statutory protection given to workmen, that is to say, the protection not be dismissed without just cause or excuse, to contracts of employment of a fixed term.This issue will also involve and require a consideration of the pertinent statutory provisions, the germane provisions of the contract itself, its background, and the circumstances of the non-renewal of the 35 Claimants' contractsthatgaverisetoatradedisputewhich the Minister thought expedient to refer to this Court for adjudication, and remedy if necessary.

2 The Han Chiang High School was established in 1951.Its main objective was to cater for students who had dropped out of the national type schools mainly at the Lower Certificate of Education (L.C.E.) and School Certificate of Education (S.C.E.) stages for lack of success in the Government examinations.

3 The School since its inception has employed teachers on a fixed term basis.In 1985 there were 83 teachers on a fixed term basis of two years at a time. 53 joined the Union of Teachers in Independent Schools, West Malaysia.In August 1986, the Minister granted recognition to the Union.In a letter addressed individually to all the teachers dated 28 November 1986, the School Secretary wrote:

"As instructed by the Board of Directors, we would like to inform you that your Service Agreement with the school will be expired on 31 December 1986.

The Board of Directors would like to take thisopportunitytothankyouforyour service to the School." (Exhibit Union 4).

4 On 17 December 1986, the Union applied to the High Court, Penang, for an interlocutory injunction restraining the School from terminating the services of the teachers.On 2 January 1987, the High Court granted the injunction.The School then filed an appeal against the decision of the High Court

5 On 14 July 1987, the Supreme Court set aside the injunction.Datuk George K.S. Seah S.C.J. in the course of his judgment stated that the proper forum to deal with complaints of wrongful dismissal was the industrial Court since it was empowered by the Act to reinstate the workman to his former position or a similar positionsiftheIndustrialCourtshouldholdthat the dismissal was without just cause or excuse

6 On the discharge of the injunction by the Supreme Court, the School, by identical letters dated 22 July 1987, told the 35 Claimants that their positions as teachers were "no longer tenable"andthattheirserviceswouldnolonger be required after 23July 1986.On 14 August 1987 the Hon'ble Minister referred the matter to this Court as a case of "pembuangan kerja 35 guru" (that is to say, the dismissal of 35 teachers).

7 The contracts of employment of the Claimants are in standard printed form and the relevant clauses include the following:

Mr/Mrs/Madam/Miss................................. is hereby engaged as a teacher to teach (subject) from 1 January 1985 to 31 December 1986......

F5. In the event of this contract being renewed, the teacher must notify the Managing Committee of his/her acceptance within one week from the date the renewal of the contract is offered.Otherwise the offer is deemed to have been rejected.

F6. If anyone does not receive any offer of the contract being renewed by the date of the expiry of the contract, it will mean that his/her service has been terminated.The School takes no responsibility to inform him/her of his/her cessation of his/her employment.