This dispute emanates over the claimant' dismissal by the company on 26 November 1997.

The claimant commenced employment with the company on 7 July 1997 as head of quality management. Before the claimant was taken in by the company he attended an interview conducted by the company' officers on 21 June 1997. For this interview the claimant had filled up an application form which had been marked as exh. CO1 and this exhibit was annexed to the company' statement in reply.

In the course of his work with the company the claimant had to report to the deputy general manager (ie, COW3) who was his immediate superior. However since COW3' work involved a lot of outstation travellings, in his absence the claimant had to report to the senior general manager, one Desmond Yip. According to COW3, some time in October 1997 he had a discussion with the senior general manager about the claimant' performance since as time went by it was noticed that the claimant' work was not satisfactory. After this discussion, COW3 then spoke to the claimant about the ISO 9002 progress which the claimant was supposed to handle so as to enable the company to get ISO 9002 certification. COW3 went on to state that since the claimant had made no progress in his work performance then the company did a background check on the claimant' previous employment.

The check on the claimant' previous employment was done by the company' human resource executive (COW5) at that material time. She conducted the check on the instruction of COW1 who was then the company' senior manager human resource. When doing the checking, COW5 contacted the Personnel and Administration Manager of Shapadu Linfox (COW4). Shapadu Linfox was the last employer of the claimant before he joined the company. From the testimony of COW5 and COW4 it was apparent that the claimant was no longer in Shapadu Linfox' employment after 16 April 1997.

On 24 November 1997, the claimant was called for a meeting. Those attending the meeting apart from the claimant were COW1, COW3 and the company' general manager. According to COW3 it was put to the claimant the fact that he had resigned from Shapadu Linfox before he came for the interview for the employment with the company. Also COW3 stated that COW1 asked the claimant to consider what they had spoken as to whether the claimant resigned from Shapadu Linfox on his own accord or was he asked to resign. COW1' testimony as to what had transpired during the meeting was that the claimant was informed that he was asked to leave by his previous employer on 16 April 1997 but during the interview on 21 June 1997 he told the interviewers that he was currently employed as the Quality System Executive of Shapadu Linfox. COW1 also stated that when the claimant was shown his application form which had the note pertaining to false information, his reply was that the information was not vital.

Following this meeting on 24 November 1997, the company then issued a termination letter dated 26 November 1997 to the claimant. This termination letter was marked as CO4 and was annexed to the company' statement in reply. The pertinent paragraphs in the said letter read as follows:

As you have given us false information and in this respect we refer to our employment application form which state as "False information or suppression of material facts will disqualify you and, if appointed, render you liable to immediate dismissal/termination.

As such your service is terminated with immediate effect ... .

The claimant' evidence was that he filled up the application form (exh. CO1) on the day he was interviewed by the company' officers. In the application form under the part "Employment History" claimant stated he had put Shapadu Linfox as his present employment because it was his last employment position. As to the particulars requested pertaining to the date he left the employment and reason for leaving which were left blank in respect of his employment with Shapadu Linfox, the claimant stated th