Judicial review examines the decision-making process and not the evidence, and retrenchment decisions must reflect bona fide management prerogatives.

[12] The principle of Last In First Out as agreed by the applicants in this application is not applicable here. The retrenchment was only applicable to that particular category of workman and department. Only the applicants were retrenched as the IT Department in which they belonged was no more in existence hence their positions because redundant.

[13] In the case of Bumihiway (M) Sdn Bhd v. Affendi Abdullah, the Industrial Court held:

"The UFO principle had no applicability since the claimant was the only person in his category and his position was being abolished as a result of the reorganisation. Once the claimant was retrenched, no other person was recruited to take his position. There was no legal obligation on the part of the company to find alternative employment for the claimant."

[14] It is trite law that the 2nd respondent as an employer is not obliged to offer any alternative employment to the applicants whose services have been terminated on grounds of redundancy.

[15] In WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd v. Siow Kim Kee & Ors, the Industrial Court held that:

"In relation to alternative position for the claimants, it is also trite that the employer is not obliged to offer any alternative employment to an employee whose services have been terminated on grounds of redundancy (see: Kesatuan Kakitangan Ladang-Ladang Seluruh Tanah Melayu v. Kumpulan Guthrie Sendirian Berhad (Award No 5 of 1970); Tuan Syed Hashim B Tuan Long v. Esso Production Malaysia Inc, [1998] 5 MLJ 535). In any event, the company was conducting downsizing exercise of its total work force and it would be against its intent and purpose to offer alternative employment for workmen who were to be retrenched."

[16] The Industrial Court in this case has analysed the reason for outsourcing of the 2nd respondent to address the company's declining profit at that point of time given the evidence of COW1 and COW2. The closing of the IT Department would save the company RM130,496.06 per annum.

[17] This Court has further analysed the evidence adduced during the hearing at the Industrial Court level and also the cases as cited earlier and this Court finds that it is failed to be proven that the 2nd respondent was acting in mala fide but in a legitimate management prerogative.

[18] The applicants alleged that there was an increase in headcount from 169 to 170 reflecting new recruitment between August and November 2007. Furthermore, there was no mention of cost reduction in the IT Department in company's minutes of meeting. COW1 during re-examination at the Industrial Court had clearly explained that there was actually a reduction in headcount (at p 25 of exh TR3 of Affidavit Tambahan).

[19] On the allegation that the 2nd respondent had approached the outsourcing company in 2007 before actually transferring the applicants to the IT Department in 2007, the Industrial Court accepted COW1's testimony that the approach was only done in the second half of December 2007 and not June 2007 (this is found at p 26 of exh TR3 of Affidavit Tambahan).

[20] The failure of the 2nd respondent to prove there was a redundancy as the system was up and running as alleged by the applicants, this Court accepts this not to be the truth as COW1 during re-examination at the Industrial Court stated that the outsource company took over the responsibility of the applicants and the 2nd respondent discontinued the ERP System after the applicants' retrenchment (p 26 of exh TR3 of Affidavit Tambahan).

[21] On the contention that there was a promotion of three Senior Managers during the financial crisis, this Court is in agreement that this is irrelevant as they were not from the IT Department and no additional costs were expended for this exercise.

[22] Pertaining to the allegation that the 2nd respondent was actually expanding at the material time, COW1 ha