Alauddin Mohd Sheriff JCA:

Factual Background

[1] The appellant was an employee of the respondent with effect from 1 April 1991. The appellant claimed that he was constructively dismissed by the respondent with effect from 18 May 1992. At that time he was drawing a salary of RM2,000 per month as a Site Manager.

[2] The events leading to the appellant's 'constructive' dismissal are as follows:

(a) On 2 May 1992, one Mr. Chua, a Director of the respondent told the appellant that he was sacked and asked the appellant to hand over the keys to the store and lorry. Mr. Chua told the appellant that this instruction came from the Managing Director of the respondent, one Lim Hock Hing (COW2). No reasons were given for this decision.

(b) On 3 May 1992 the appellant went to work but was refused entry into the respondent's premises. The appellant was told by Mr. Chua again that he (the appellant) had been sacked and that the appellant should go and see the Managing Director to confirm the matter.

(c) On that same day (3 May 1992) the appellant went to see the Managing Director and asked why his services with the respondent was terminated. The Managing Director replied that he could do what he liked since he was the Managing Director of the respondent. Thereafter, an argument ensued between the two. There was an exchange of vulgar language in Hokkien and Cantonese. The Managing Director hit the table and shouted at the appellant to "get out of my place".

(d) Prior to that, the appellant had applied for leave from 4 May 1992 to 17 May 1992, which leave application was made on 29 April 1992.

(e) On 12 May 1992 the appellant wrote to the respondent informing the respondentinter alia that unless he was reinstated by 18 May 1992 he would consider himself 'constructively' dismissed.

(f) The respondent did not reply to the appellant's letter of 12 May 1992.

[3] Pursuant to his 'constructive' dismissal, the appellant filed representations under s. 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("the Act") which resulted in his case being referred to the Industrial Court for adjudication.

[4] The matter was heard by the Industrial Court and the Industrial Court handed down Award No. 119 of 1995 (see pp. 88 to 100 Appeal Record) in favour of the appellant. The appellant was awarded backwages (limited to 24 months) and compensationin lieu of reinstatement. The award sum was reduced by 20% due to contributory conduct. The total sum awarded to the appellant was RM43,280.

[5] Being dissatisfied with the award the respondent moved the High Court at Kuala Lumpur for an order of certiorari to quash the said award of the Industrial Court.

[6] On 25 March 1998 the High Court allowed the respondent's application with costs. This is now an appeal by the appellant directed against that decision of the High Court.

Grounds Of Appeal

[7] Although several grounds were raised by the appellants' counsel in this appeal, we do not propose to deal with all of them. It would suffice if we just deal with the relevant ones. They are as follows:

(i) The learned trial judge erred in law and in fact in holding that the appellant had failed to call one Mr. Chua an employee of the respondent, as a witness for the appellant to prove his case, when the respondent had failed to challenge in any manner in cross-examination the evidence of the appellant that Mr. Chua had been instructed by the Managing Director of the respondent to inform the appellant that he had been dismissed from service on 2 May 1992.

(ii) The learned trial judge erred in law and in fact in failing to appreciate that the jespondent's failure to cross-examine the appellant on his testimony regarding what Mr. Chua had told him, tantamounts to an admission that his evidence in examination-in-chief is true and unrebutted.

(iii) The learned trial judge misdirected himself in law in invoking s. 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 against the appellant notwithstanding the fact that the appellant's testimony before the I