Abdul Kadir Sulaiman J:

[1] On 21 July 1995 the Applicant filed a notice of motion purportedly in pursuance to leave granted, for an order of certiorari to quash and/or set aside Award No 258 of 1995 handed down by the Industrial Court on 20 June 1995 whereby it was held that the termination of the service of the Applicant by the Respondent was valid and that the claim of the Applicant was without merit. In that notice of motion it is stated that the grounds for the application are as stated in the affidavit of Tuan Syed Hashim bin Tuan Long and in the statement under O 53 r (1)(2) of the Rules of the High 1980. Attached to the said notice of motion is the affidavit of Syed Hashim bin Tuan Long affirmed on 21 July 1995 and a statement filed in accordance with O 53 r (1)(2) of the Rules of the High 1980.

[2] Then by a summons in chambers filed on 11 October 1995 the Applicant applied for leave to amend the said notice of motion of 21 July 1995. On 11 December 1995, leave was granted to the Applicant thereby converting the notice of motion into an application for leave to apply for an order of certiorari instead. On 5 February 1997, on the hearing of the amended motion, leave to apply for an order of certiorari was granted. Pursuant to the leave granted, the Applicant on 6 February 1997 filed another notice of motion for the substantive application for an order of certiorari to quash and or set aside the said award of the Industrial Court handed down on 20 June 1995. On 15 July 1997, the said substantive application came up for hearing. However, on that day the parties agreed to proceed by way of written submissions and the hearing was adjourned to 29 October 1997.

[3] Learned counsel for the Respondent contends in his written submissions that this application of the Applicant is irregular as being contrary to the requirement of O 53 r 2(1) of the Rules of the High 1980 which requires that such an application must be made by way of an originating motion which according to him should be in Form 9 in Appendix A to the Rules. Furthermore, the notice of motion of the Applicant of 6 February 1997 for the substantive application does not state the grounds of the application and was not accompanied by a supporting affidavit. In her submission in reply, Rose Zilawati, counsel for the Applicant maintained that the Applicant had adopted the right procedure in the making of this application.

[4] In this case, on 5 February 1997 the amended notice of motion for leave to apply for an order of certiorari came up for disposal. Under normal circumstances, this nature of application must be made ex parte pursuant to O 53 r 1(2). But on that day, the counsel representing the Respondent was present for the hearing and at the request of both counsel the application was heard inter partes. Both counsel made their submissions upon the application for leave. Having heard the arguments, I found that the application was not frivolous or vexatious to entitle me to refuse the leave sought. By an oral decision, I granted the leave sought by the Applicant to apply for the order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Industrial Court. Pursuant to that leave granted, the Applicant filed the notice of motion on 6 February 1997. It is this notice of motion that the learned counsel for the Respondent objected. The said notice of motion is in enclosure (24). It merely prays for an order of certiorari to quash and or to set aside the award handed down by the Industrial Court on 20 June 1995 whereby the Court ordered that the termination by the Respondent was valid and the claim of the Applicant has no merit. The Applicant also prays for this Court to refer back to the hearing of the application in the amended notice of motion dated 11 October 1995 together with the affidavit of Syed Hashim bin Tuan Long together with the statement filed pursuant to O 53 r (1)(2) of the Rules of the High 1980 and also the further affidavit of Balbinder Kaur affirmed on