[1] On a reference by the Minister under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, the Industrial Court by its Award No: 305/90 dated 15 November 1990 found Wong Yuen Hock, an insurance claims manager of twelve years standing in the employment of Hong Leong Assurance Sdn Bhd had been dismissed without just cause or excuse on the sole ground of the failure of the employer to hold a domestic inquiry as required under the terms of Wong's contract of employment. In lieu of reinstatement the Court had awarded him compensation but the quantum was limited to one year's salary, totalling RM43,200 by reason of his contributory act of misconduct. By separate originating motion, both the employer and employee applied to have the award quashed by certiorari. Hong Leong was aggrieved by the whole award, whilst Wong was dissatisfied with that part of the award which had reduced the compensation to one year's salary. The two related appeals arose from the decision of Abu Mansor, in dismissing both the applications. At both Counsels' request, we agreed to hear Wong's appeal first. After hearing submissions, we upheld the learned Judge's order of dismissal of Wong's application for certiorari to quash the reduced award of compensation as we were not persuaded that the Industrial Court had exceeded or was acting without jurisdiction in finding Wong's involvement in the surreptitious way in which two motor wrecks had been sold. Nor could we accept the argument that such serious irregularities in the sales could not constitute gross dereliction of duties in the motor insurance business. In exercising judicial review, the High Court was obliged not to interfere with the findings of the Industrial Court unless they were found to be unreasonable, in the sense that no reasonable man or body of men could reasonably come to the conclusion that it did, or that the decisions of the Industrial Court looked at objectively, are so devoid of any plausible justification that no reasonable person or body of persons could have reached them (see Lord Denning's judgment in Griffiths (Inspector of Taxes) v. JP Harrison (Watford), Ltd [1962] 1 AER 99 at 916, and judgment of Lord Diplock in Bromley London Borough Council v. Greater London Council and Anor [1983] 1 AC 768 at 821).

[2] In the result we were obliged to dismiss Wong's appeal against the High Court's refusal to quash the reduced award. We only needed to add that in assessing compensation in lieu of reinstatement, it was the practice of the Industrial Court (so we were told) to take into consideration any contributory misconduct of the claimant. We were of the opinion that such practice was perfectly justified in appropriate cases so that the employee's own misdemeanour or unsatisfactory conduct might be taken as contributory factor towards the assessment of compensation for the wrongful dismissal. In our view such practice was not only consistent with the provision of s 30(5) of the Industrial Relations Act, which requires the Industrial Court to act according to equity and good conscience when making its awards, but would also discourage unfair trade practice by motor insurance executives whereby a repairable insured car could be readily condemned as wreck for the benefit of the interested party to the detriment of insurance companies.