Judicial review allows for scrutiny of ministerial discretion under labor laws, ensuring decisions are made within legal boundaries.

Collin Lawrence Sequerah JC:

A) The Application Before The Court

[1] The applicant above named by way of this application for judicial review seeks to quash by way of certiorari the decision made by the Honourable Minister of Human Resources (1st respondent) on 30 April 2014 in refusing to refer the applicant's complaint of representation for unfair dismissal to the Industrial Court for an award. He also seeks an order of mandamus to direct the Minister to refer the dismissal of the applicant to the Industrial Court for adjudication.

B) Salient Background Facts

[2] The applicant was employed by the 2nd respondent as Department Manager-Finance (Internal Audit) since 5 January 2009. Sometime in April 2013, the applicant was informed that his performance had not met with the expectations of the then Internal Audit Director of the 2nd respondent. The issues raised in respect of the applicant's performance were in the areas of project and time management skills, technical internal audit skills and interpersonal skills. This fact was evidenced by an e-mail exhibited as exh "JH3" annexed to the affidavit of the applicant affirmed on 9 July 2014, hereinafter, (applicant's affidavit in support). On 29 August 2013, the Manager of Human Resources of the 2nd respondent arranged for a teleconference involving the applicant and some senior management of the 2nd respondent which also included the said Internal Audit Director. The purpose of the teleconference was to discuss the performance concerns related to the applicant as well as to discuss various career options. Following this, the 2nd respondent proposed that the applicant be placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP). The applicant had also suggested through an e-mail dated 3 September 2013, exh "JH5" of the applicant's affidavit in support, two other options. These were, granting him sufficient time to look for alternative employment in a similar position or that he be paid reasonable compensation to leave the 2nd respondent's employment respectively. There appears to be some dispute as to whether it was the applicant or the 2nd respondent who suggested that the applicant be placed on the PIP, but in any event what is clear is that the applicant was not agreeable to be placed on the PIP. The applicant's reason was that he alleged that there was an attempt to oust him from the employment of the 2nd respondent. This allegation was however denied by the 2nd respondent by way of an e-mail dated 18 September 2013 annexed as exh "JH7" of the applicant's affidavit in support. In respect of the option proposed that the applicant look for alternative employment, the applicant had raised the issue of the limited opportunities available in Penang for the position of Internal Auditor and that he felt that job opportunities for the position would only materialise toward the end of 2014. The applicant was therefore unable to commit to a timeline in which he could obtain alternative employment. In respect of the option to receive reasonable compensation and to mutually end the employment relationship, the applicant and the 2nd respondent were not able to achieve any consensus in respect of the quantum of the compensation. As the 2nd respondent was unable to agree to the quantum as stipulated by the applicant, the 2nd respondent sent a letter to the applicant dated 1 October 2013, exh "JH9"of the applicant's affidavit in support recording their terms of the separation of employment. The 2nd respondent thereafter credited the amount due by way of compensation for the separation of employme