Eusoff Chin J:

[1] A representation had been made to the Director General of Industrial Relations ('DGIR') under s 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ('the Act') by three workmen who claimed to have been dismissed without just cause and excuse by their employer ('the respondent') vide termination notice dated 5 May 1987. The three workmen received their wages for May 1987.

[2] In accordance with s 20(2) of the Act, the DGIR took steps to bring about an expeditious settlement of the complaint. It is not disputed that while such steps were being taken by the DGIR and while negotiations were going on, the respondent had called the three workmen to its office premises on 20 July 1987 where the respondent offered, and the three workmen accepted payments of compensation. The personnel administrative officer of the respondent made the three workmen sign documents stating that they would not make any further claims on the respondent in respect of the termination of their employment. However, the three workmen claimed that they were forced to accept the compensation, and that they had orally protested when asked to sign the documents. On 12 August 1987, they wrote to the respondent to say that they had accepted the payments of compensation under protest.

[3] After paying the compensation to the workmen, on 25 July 1987, the respondent wrote to the DGIR to inform him of what had happened. The DGIR asked the workmen whether they had agreed to the settlement, and this resulted in the three workmen writing to the respondent the letter mentioned above dated 12 August 1987. The DGIR then submitted his report to the Minister, who being satisfied that no settlement was likely to be reached between the parties, referred the representation under s 20(3) of the Act to the Industrial Court for an award. At the hearing of the reference at the Industrial Court, the first two claimants ('the applicants') were present; the third claimant could not be traced. The counsel for the respondent raised before the Industrial Court a preliminary objection stating that since the two workmen (the applicants) had accepted compensation, estoppel operated to stop them from proceeding with their claims for having been dismissed without just cause or excuse. The Industrial Court considered a number of its own past decisions, and a few Indian Supreme Court judgments on this point, and it upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the applicants' claim. Hence this application for an order of certiorari to quash the Industrial Court's decision.

[4] It is to be noted that the DGIR was fully aware of the payment of compensation to, and the acceptance of it by each applicant. In spite of that, the DGIR had refused to treat the dispute/representation as settled, and instead proceeded to submit his report to the Minister, which report was only necessary to be made if the DGIR was of the opinion that the representation was unlikely to be settled.

[5] In my judgment, s 54 of the Act is a provision to be considered by the Industrial Court when making the ruling in upholding the preliminary objection and rejecting the claim. Had there been a genuine settlement reached while the dispute was being dealt with by the DGIR under s 20(2) of the Act, the legal requirement is that both parties to the dispute must sign a statement stating what they had agreed to. It is not sufficient that only one party signed the statement, as happened in this case.

[6] There must be evidence to show that such agreed settlement was the result of the steps taken by the DGIR in his effort to effect an amicable settlement. The wording of s 54(2) appears to show that the settlement has to be signed before the DGIR, whose duty is to see that the settlement as stated in the document to be signed by both the parties to the dispute, has been reached fairly, and that the parties have so signed the document voluntarily. Further, the provision of s 54(3) of the Act, makes it clear that even if there