This is an application for orders of certiorari and mandamus respecting the Industrial Court's Award No 240 of 1995 dated 7 June 1995, which upheld the applicant's dismissal from the service of the respondent. The application was heard by me on 26 October 1998. After hearing the submissions of both sides, I dismissed the application with costs.

The applicant commenced employment with the respondent society on 12 August 1974, as a clerical officer. Sometime in February 1993, honorary secretary of the respondent society received a letter of complaint from the office manager of an alleged act of insubordination by the applicant towards him. Vide a letter dated 12 February 1993, the applicant was asked to explain the allegation of insubordination on her part. The applicant denied the above allegation vide her letter dated 15 February 1993. Dissatisfied with the applicant's response, the respondent held an inquiry on 19 February 1993 and 10 March 1993. The panel found the applicant guilty of the charge which reads:

It has been reported that on 11 February 1993 between the hours of 3.00 pm and 4.00 pm at the Jaffnese Co-operative Society Ltd's office, No 40–40–1 Jalan Tun Sambanthan 3, 50708 Kuala Lumpur, you blatantly refused to carry out the lawful order of the office manager, Mr V Selvaratnam in that when you were instructed to extend a copy of the Angkasa advice letter to the member, Miss T Thavachelvi (Mem No 16380), you failed to do so.

In consequence of the finding of guilt by the panel of inquiry and taking into consideration the past record of the applicant, namely the numerous warnings that had been issued to her over the years regarding her attitude and behaviour, the respondent terminated her services with effect from 21 March 1993.

The learned chairman of the Industrial Court upheld the dismissal and at p 8 of the award he said:

The salient facts in this case are not in dispute. The issue before the court is the disobedience by the claimant (applicant) of the instruction of her superior and whether it amounts to misconduct to justify the punishment of dismissal. In considering whether the claimant's (applicant's) conduct in the circumstances of the case amounted to a deliberate disregard of her position as a subordinate it is necessary to examine the nature of the order. There is nothing unlawful or unreasonable for the office manager to instruct her to extend a copy of the letter to a member of the Society even if it is contrary to existing practice. It is not an instruction in conflict with an important policy of the Society. It is a mere administrative matter which the claimant (applicant) was obliged to obey and should not undermine the supervisory position of her superior officer. It is not an accepted norm and it would be impracticable whenever a subordinate is required to perform a simple administrative function it should be put in writing. The claimant's (applicant's) conduct on 11 February 1993 when she blatantly refused to carry out the instruction of her superior was tantamount to defiance of a person in authority and was detrimental to discipline. … The claimant's (applicant's) insubordination towards the office manager was a breach of duty owed by her to the Society under the contract of employment. It was serious taken together with her past record on her pattern of behaviour. She has little respect for others.

I have carefully scrutinised the claimant's (applicant's) record on past misconduct and have found the past incidents were close enough in relations to the misconduct in this instant case. I have taken into consideration her past misconducts for the cumulative effect only for the purpose of deciding the appropriate punishment as I am of the view they were relevant to the issue before this court. I am fully aware when a misconduct has been condoned or dealt as in this case and the claimant (applicant) retained in service, it is not open to the Society to subsequently dismiss her for the