(delivering the judgment of the court): The only question argued in this appeal was whether the labour officer had power under section 69(1) of the Employment Act 1955 to determine the validity of the dismissal of an employee by his employer?

Mr. Karam Singh for the appellant had submitted that the words "any dispute" in section 69(1) of the Employment Act 1955 are not restricted to "wage" dispute but covered all disputes between an employee and his employer including a dispute that this dismissal was without just cause or excuse.

For the respondent, Mr. M. Nagarajah had contended that the phrase "any dispute" should be given a restricted meaning and is limited only to a dispute relating to wages due to an employee arising out of the Employment Act or under a contract of service between such employee and his employer.

In our opinion, section 69(1) of the Employment Act 1955 had been considered and judicially interpreted by Harun J. in the case of Nylex (M) Sdn Bhd v Alias bin Chek [1985] 1 CLJ 185 where the learned judge appeared to have construed the phrase "any dispute" in a restricted sense as that suggested by Mr. Nagarajah. This appeal was in effect an attempt by Mr. Karam Singh to try to persuade this court to overturn the decision of Harun J. in the Nylex case. We have read the reasons given by the learned judge in his judgment for adopting such a course and with respect, we are in agreement with him that section 69(1) of the Employment Act 1955 does not give any power to the Director-General or labour officer of the Ministry of Labour to question the validity of the dismissal of an employee by his employer.

The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent. The deposit to be paid to the respondent on account of taxed costs.