KC Vohrah J:

This application is for a certiorarito quash Award No. 307 of 1998 of the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court re-instated the respondent (the claimant) as Assistant Factory Manager in the applicant company (the company) in Tapah on the ground that he had been unjustly dismissed.

The claimant had had his last position in the company as Personal Assistant to the Managing Director in Kuala Lumpur, a position to which he had been seconded from that of Assistant Factory Manager in Tapah. He was retrenched on the ground that the job of Personal Assistant to the Managing Director and certain other jobs had been found to be redundant. The claimant's case was that he should have been reverted to his former position as Assistant Factory Manager which had not been shown to be redundant. The Industrial Court agreed with the company that the position of Personal Assistant to Manager was redundant but went on to hold that it was not shown that the position of Assistant Factory Manager was so and ordered the re-instatement of the claimant as Assistant Factory Manager.

The company has argued that the Industrial Court's award was based on conclusions which were inconsistent, contradictory and so unreasonable that the court committed errors of law in its award.

The company has a kaolin factory in Tapah. The claimant started work with the company as an unskilled worker at the factory in December 1969. He was steadily promoted to semi skilled worker, skilled worker, shift supervisor, chief supervisor and then after about 17 years in the factory he was made, in 1987, the Assistant Factory Manager.

In 1994 in order to maintain industrial harmony in the factory where the claimant was a strict man the company agreed with the Trade Union of workers to move him from the position of Assistant Factory Manager over some complaints from other workers, and the claimant did not object, to what was stated as "secondment" from the factory to the Kuala Lumpur office. The claimant became the Personal Assistant to the Managing Director on the same salary as before but with an "out station" allowance.

On 28 December 1996 the claimant's services with the company were terminated through a letter of retrenchment sent to him. It was the company's stand that the claimant had been retrenched together with other employees as there was a redundancy position in the company because of a drop in business and expectation of loss in 1997.

It was the claimant's case before the Industrial Court that there was no evidence that the company was facing loss and therefore had to retrench nor was there evidence that there was redundancy as in fact work did exist in the company. The claimant's case was that he should have been transferred back to the factory.

The Industrial Court found as a fact that the company's financial position was deteriorating in 1995 and 1996 and that it was reasonable on the part of the company to forecast a more adverse position in 1997.

The Industrial Court made a second finding of fact that there was a redundancy situation in the company and that the company had re-organised because of a reasonable expectation of a drop in the business and of reasonable expectation of loss in 1997. The Industrial Court was satisfied that though he was called Personal Assistant to the Managing Director he was in fact helping out in the administration and accounts department and the services of the claimant in helping out in the accounts and administration department were no longer required because of reduced business and that the company did not take other staff to replace the claimant.

It will have to be borne in mind that that the finding that the Industrial Court made was in respect of the redundancy of the claimant's job in Kuala Lumpur as Personal Assistant to the Manager.

The Industrial Court did not stop there; it went on to consider the issue raised by the claimant that if his services had been surplus in the Kuala Lumpur office he should hav