This dispute between the Applicant and the first Respondent came before the second Respondent, the Industrial Court, following a reference by the Minister of the first Respondent's representation made under section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The issues in the dispute are in the pleadings filed by the parties with the Industrial Court. There is no dispute as to the fact that the first Respondent joined the service of the Applicant on 1st November 1973 and her last drawn salary was RM1,300.00 per month.

By her statement of case, the first Respondent avers that she worked for the Applicant as a supervisor. In early 1993 the Applicant summarily ordered her to be a "sample sower". The Applicant was not satisfied with her production capacity and required of her to produce more to be commensurate with her salary paid by the company. Later the Applicant forced her into signing a printed letter of resignation to take effect from 5th June 1995 marked as exhibit "C-1". Therefore, she claimed that she was dismissed from her job with the Applicant from that effective date and that this dismissal was without just cause or excuse, and contrary to the principles of natural justice and an unfair labour practice. She, therefore, claims for reinstatement as a supervisor without loss of any benefit monetary or otherwise. The Applicant denies in the statement in reply of the fact of the dismissal and avers that the first Respondent on her own volition tendered her resignation from the service of the company on 5th June 1995.

Therefore, in the light of the pleadings, it is for the first Respondent to prove on the balance of probability that she was being dismissed from the service by the Applicant and that exhibit "C-1" was forced upon her by the Applicant against her will. At the conclusion of the hearing before the Industrial Court, it handed down Award No. 88 of 1997 (the impugned award) on 27th February 1997 holding that there was the dismissal from service of the first Respondent by the Applicant and that such dismissal was without just cause and excuse. Accordingly the learned Chairman ordered the Applicant to pay back-wages to the first Respondent from the date of the dismissal to the last date of the hearing before her in the sum of RM24,700.00 and in lieu of reinstatement she ordered that compensation in lieu be paid at the rate of one month's salary for every year of completed service for the period from the date of joining to the last date of the hearing amounting to RM29,000.00. By this application the Applicant seek for an order of certiorari to quash the said award of the learned Chairman of the Industrial Court.

In the impugned Award, the learned Chairman gave her reasons for arriving at the decision. It is on a finding of fact before her based on the evidence adduced by both parties. On the evidence she believed that version of the evidence put forward by the first Respondent over that of the Applicant and from there drew an inference that the first Respondent was dismissed by the Applicant without just cause and excuse. This matter before the court is not an appeal against the said decision of the learned Chairman but a proceeding for judicial review of the decision. That being the case, one of the grounds for the Applicant to succeed in this application for certiorari is to satisfy this court that the decision of the Industrial Court is perverse or the decision reached is unreasonable, in the sense that no reasonable tribunal similarly circumstanced would have arrived at the impugned decision: see Syarikat Kenderaan Melayu Kelantan Bhd. v. Transport Workers Union (1995) 2 MLJ 317 CA.

In this case after analysing the evidence put in by the parties, the learned Chairman concluded as follows as appeared at page 11 of the impugned Award:

" From the totality of the evidence adduced before the Court it seems clear that there was some kind of threat and/or coercion and/or persuasion made by COW2, as a result of