(delivering the judgment of the Court): Dr. A. Dutt was a radiology consultant and was employed by the Assunta Hospital under a contract. He was also a non-citizen and his holding the appointment was dependent on his stay in the country for which a visit pass was necessary and the issue of a work permit from the Department of Immigration.

On February 29, 1976, he was given the contractual 3 months' notice of termination, but at the same time he was offered a new contract on somewhat reduced terms. He refused the new offer and the Hospital regarded his contract as terminated. Dr. Dutt took another view. He considered that he had been dismissed without just cause and excuse and he made representations to the Director-General of the Ministry of Labour and Manpower to be reinstated in his former employment under the relevant provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, 1967, (the Act). In due course of time, after reconciliation failed, the Minister referred the representations to the Industrial Court for an award. The reference was registered as Industrial Court Case No. 83 of 1976.

The reference was not greatly to the liking of the hospital. Despite the failure of its representations to the Minister, it continued to oppose the hearing of the reference. After the case was registered, it applied after obtaining leave from the High Court at Kuala Lumpur for an order of prohibition to prevent the Chairman of the Industrial Court, before whom the case was placed, from hearing the case. A High Court Judge heard the application on October 29, 1976 and the very next day, that is on October 30, 1976, he dismissed the application. The hospital promptly appealed to the Federal Court. There was some delay in supplying the grounds of decision and regretfully it had to be said as a fact that the delay and the notice of appeal were made to be the reasons and the occasions for dragging out the hearing in the Industrial Court. When the appeal came before us and it was dismissed after both counsel were heard, the Industrial Court case concluded very soon afterwards, but in effect, a delay of some 3 years or so had resulted. "In these … cases, the law's delays have been intolerable. They have lasted so long as to turn justice sour." These are the words of Lord Denning M.R. in Allen v Sir Alfred McAlpine & Sons Ltd [1968] 2 QB 229, 243, echoed by Lord Wilberforce in Tolley v Morris [1979] 1 WLR 592 at page 593. Whatever the cause of the delay, whether it is want of prosecution or any other cause, it occasions a failure of justice.

In applying for leave for the order of prohibition, the hospital gave three grounds: first, Dr. Dutt was a non-citizen, secondly, he was not a workman under the Industrial Relations Act, 1967 and thirdly, the Chairman should not be sitting alone, without a panel, without the consent of the parties, section 23(4) of the Act notwithstanding. These grounds found no favour with the judge. With respect, we entirely agreed with the judge and we dismissed the appeal. We now give our reasons, since they are asked for, even though no appeal had been lodged and the Industrial Court had since handed down an award.

Under section 23, the Industrial Court may sit in two or more divisions with the same or different Chairman, a division is to consist of a Chairman and a panel of advisers, but subsection (4) provides that

"(4) Notwithstanding the foregoing subsections, for the purpose of dealing with any reference to the court under section 20(3), a Division may be constituted by the Chairman sitting alone."

Thus, for a case which comes under section 20(3), the Chairman may sit alone without a panel and it is not necessary that to do so he must obtain the consent of the parties. A reference under section 20(3) is one in respect of a workman who is not a member of a trade union of workers. Dr. Dutt was not such a member, to the clear knowledge of the hospital and its advisers. His case therefore came squarely under section