Raus Sharif J:

This is an application by BumiputraCommerce Bank Berhad (the applicant) for an order of certiorari to quash the Industrial Court Award No. 690 dated 20 December 1999. In the said award, the Industrial Court found that the second respondent had been dismissed without just cause or excuse. Consequently, the Industrial Court ordered back wages and compensation in lieu of reinstatement as follows:

(i) the second respondent to be paid back wages from the date of dismissal (27 December 1995) to the final date of hearing (10 June 1999) subject to the maximum of 24 months, that is, RM2,600 x 24 = RM62,400;

(ii) the second respondent shall be paid in lieu of reinstatement one month's salary for every year of completed service from the date of joining (1 June 1989) to the final date of hearing (10 June 1999), that is, RM2,600 x 18 = RM46,800.

Briefly, the factual background that led to this application by the applicant are as follows.

The second respondent joined the services of the applicant's bank on 1 June 1981 beginning as a clerk. He was then promoted to the position of officer in Grade II effective 1 June 1990. On 3 June 1993 he was then again promoted to the position of Assistant Manager of Credit. On 7 March 1994, he was subsequently promoted to the level of Grade 10 effective from 1 July 1993. His last basic salary was RM2,600 per month.

By a letter dated 14 April 1995, the applicant levelled three charges against the second respondent. The charges read as follows:

1. That you had abused your position as an officer of the bank and brought your private interest into conflict with your duties as such, when you deliberately arranged for the granting of overdraft facilities to the below mentioned customers and after approval thereof utilized the said facilities, either by operating and/or exercising control over the operation for the relevant correct accounts and your personal benefits.

Name of Customer Account A/A No. Date of Amount

No. Approval

1. Mohd. Lofti 442103 OD/S/ 29.01.1992 50,000.00

Hussin and 92018

Zainatul Husniah

bt. Hussin

2. Azizah Abas & 449655 OD/MC/ 27.02.1992 50,000.00

Noraini Abas 92046

You had, therefore contravened the Treasury and Investment banking Circular No. 88/47 P.U. No. 381: Code of Ethics dated 12 December 1998.

2. In furtherance to Charge No. 1 above, you had, by utilizing the said overdraft facilities, thereby directly or indirectly received or agreed to receive a facility for your personal pecuniary benefit or advantage.

You had therefore, contravened s. 115(1) of the Banking And Financial Institutions Act 1989.

3. That you had, with intent to deceive, added another signature on the specimen signature cards pertaining to the current account of customers as mentioned in charge No. 1 above, and thereby you made or caused to be made false entry in the bank's document.

You had therefore, contravened s. 105 of the Banking And Financial Institutions Act 1989.

A domestic inquiry was held against the second respondent on 8 November 1995. Resulting from the domestic inquiry, the second respondent was dismissed on 27 December 1995.

The second respondent filed a representation under s. 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (the Act) as he considers his dismissal was without just cause or excuse. Pursuant to s. 20(3) of the Act, the Honourable Minister of Human Resource referred the matter to the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court decided in favour of the second respondent. Hence, the applicant is now challenging the award.

The applicant in support of this application advanced a number of grounds. Basically, the main complaint of the applicant is that the Industrial Court was wrong to hear the matter de novo. In hearing the matter de novo, it is submitted by the applicant that the Industrial Court failed to consider whether or not the domestic inquiry was valid and whether the inquiry notes are accurate. Thus, according to the applicant, the Industrial Court in coming to the