The court reaffirmed that findings by the Industrial Court are not to be disturbed without evidence of illegality or irrationality.

[1] This was an appeal by Sunway University College ("the company") against the decision of the High Court in allowing the respondent's ("the claimant") judicial review application to quash the decision of the Industrial Court and in remitting the matter to the Industrial Court to decide on the appropriate reliefs.

[2] For the reasons that follow, we had unanimously allowed the appeal.

Background Facts

[3] The claimant was employed by the company as a lecturer on 1 June 1995. On 1 July 2001, the claimant was promoted to the post of a senior lecturer.

[4] The claimant alleged that she was constructively dismissed by the company on 19 December 2007, following the company's decision to downgrade her after she was found guilty of acts of defiance and insubordination towards her immediate superior, the Acting Head of the School of Computer Technology, Dr Wong Heng Hun ("Dr Wong") and the Vice-Chancellor of the University, Prof Jarlath Ronayne ("Prof Jarlath").

[5] The sequence of events that led to the disciplinary action against the claimant, briefly are as follows.

[6] A Project Coordination Meeting ("PC Meeting"), was held on 10 September 27 at 1.30 pm in the Meeting Room of the School of Computer Technology ("the SCT"). The claimant, as the coordinator of programme of the SCT, had issued the invitation list and agenda about a week prior to the PC Meeting.

[7] The attendees at the PC Meeting were Dr Wong (the Chairman), Mr Johnny, Ms Jaya Athinarayanan, Ms Shanta, Ms Nagini (the Secretary) and the claimant. Shanta's name was not on the invitation list. She was brought in by Dr Wong.

[8] The claimant had asked Dr Wong as to the reason why Shanta was present at the meeting. Dr Wong explained that he had brought Shanta along to ensure continuity so that Shanta as Head of Operations could follow through on issues raised at the PC Meeting during his absence. The claimant was unhappy with the explanation and stated that Shanta should not be present at the PC Meeting and that Dr Wong should have consulted the claimant before he made the decision to invite Shanta to the PC Meeting.

[9] Parties were at variance as to what exactly happened thereafter The company's version was that the claimant left the meeting room and after she returned, she insisted that Shanta should not be present. The claimant on the other hand maintained that she did not leave the meeting room at all but had only excused herself to let matters 'cool off for a while' after Dr Wong became agitated when the claimant queried the presence of Shanta.

[10] Dr Wong and Shanta then left the meeting room. Dr Wong briefed Prof Jarlath on the incident and they both returned to the meeting where Prof Jarlath asked the claimant as to her authority to question Dr Wong on Shanta's presence. Prof Jarlath had also informed the claimant that Dr Wong, as the Acting Head of the SCT had the right to invite Shanta. It was again the company's version that despite the explanation from Prof Jarlath, the claimant insisted that Dr Wong should have informed her first.

[11] On 11 September 2007, the company issued a Notice of Suspension to the claimant with full pay. On 21 September 2007, the company issued a show cause letter to the claimant with four (4) allegations of misconduct. The claimant replied to the company's letter on 24 September 2007, denying all the allegations of misconduct framed against her.

[12] On 10 October 2007, a domestic inquiry was conducted where the claimant was found guilty of the