Gunn Chit Tuan J:

The applicant, Malayawata Steel Berhad, sought by writ of certiorari to remove into this Court for the purpose of it being quashed Industrial Court Award No. 57/76 made on 22 July 1976 in Industrial Court Case No 71/76.The grounds on which the leave was sought were as follows:-

(1)for breach of the rules of natural justice in that the applicant was not given a fair opportunity of being heard by presenting its case and calling witnesses;

(2) for excess of jurisdiction in that the Industrial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by making an award on the quantum of Special Relief Allowance when this was not one of the issues before the Court; and

(3)for an error of law on the face of the Record in that under s. 30(7) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1967 (Revised 1976) , the Industrial Court can only make an award retrospective to a date not more than six months from the date the dispute was referred to the Court.

The events leading up to the present proceedings were as follows:-

In 1973 the applicant and the respondent, the Union of Malayawata Steel Workers, commenced negotiations on improved wages and conditions of service. The negotiations were fraught with difficulties and for a long time no agreement was reached. It was then decided by both parties that, as an interim measure, an Interim Agreement dated 28 November 1973 be entered into between the parties whereby the applicant agreed to give an immediate base up in salary to the respondent's members, in return for which the respondent was to stop industrial action (then in progress) and to give up any claim for cost of living allowance (COLA) at the forthcoming negotiations, which were to be held subsequently, to finalise all other claims.

Subsequently, the applicant and the respondent recommenced negotiations which eventually resulted in the conclusion of the Collective Agreement signed on 23 August 1974.

On 19 April 1975, eight months later, the respondent wrote to the applicant submitting a claim for COLA or SRA. The applicant replied to the respondent on 24 April 1975, stating that it was the applicant's contention that the respondent had agreed to make no separate claim for COLA as it had been included in the base-up in salary given in the said Interim Agreement. The respondent was not satisfied with the applicant's reply aid eventually both sides agreed to refer the matter to the Industrial Court on a Joint Application dated 24 September 1975 as an interpretation dispute over the clause concerned in the Interim Agreement. The said Joint Application was heard by the Industrial Court on 5 January 1976, and the Industrial. Court ruled that as the said Interim Agreement had not been deposited with it and was therefore not officially taken cognizance of, it was unable to treat that Application as an interpretation issue. The said Court then suggested that both parties could proceed, if they so desired, under s. 26 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1967 (Revised-1976) , that is to agree to treat the question of COLA as a trade dispute and to refer it to the Ministry of Labour for conciliation. If conciliation proved unsuccessful, the matter could be referred by the Minister of Labour to the Industrial Court. Subsequently both parties agreed that the matter should be referred to the Industrial Court which ordered on 22 July 1976 as follows:-

(1)the payment of Supplementary Relief Allowance by the applicant to members of the respondent;

(2)payment of Supplementary Relief Allowance at the following rates:-

(a) $45 to those drawing below $200;

(b)$35 to those drawing from $201 to $300;

(c)$25 to those drawing from $301 to $500.

(3)the payment of such amounts to be made with effect from 1 May 1975.

With regard to the first ground on which relief was sought, namely, breach of the rules of natural justice, it was pointed out by Mr. Hepworth, Counsel for the applicant, that the applicant wished to call witnesses to adduce evidence at the heari