Abdul Kadir Sulaiman JCA:

This matter of dispute between the appellant and the first respondent first came to be adjudicated by the second respondent under the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (the Act) resulting in the award dismissing the claim of the appellant. The appellant then went by way of a certiorari proceedings before the learned High Court Judge to quash the award. Unsuccessful, his application was dismissed by the High Court with costs. Hence, this appeal before us against the said decision of the learned judge. We heard the appeal and on 23 March 2005, we also dismissed it with an order that the costs should follow the event. We now provide our reasons for the decision we made.

The jurisdiction of the second respondent flows from the operation of s. 20 of the Act 1967. It states:

(1) Where a workman, considers that he has been dismissed without just cause or excuse by his employer, he may make representations in writing to the Director General to be reinstated in his former employment;

(2) Upon receipt of the representations the Director General shall take such steps as he may consider necessary or expedient so that an expeditious settlement thereof is arrived at; where the Director General is satisfied that there is no likelihood of the representations being settled, he shall notify the Minister accordingly.

(3) Upon receiving the notification of the Director General under subsection (2), the Minister may, if he thinks fit, refer the representations to the Court for an award.

It is our view that the reference of the representations of a workman under s. 20(1) of the Act to the Industrial Court under subsection (3) for its award, must relate to an alleged dismissal of the workman from his employment with his employer for the Industrial Court to determine whether that alleged dismissal was with or without just cause or excuse. If at the proceedings had with the Industrial Court pursuant to the reference there was a finding that there was in fact no dismissal as alleged, then whatever happened between the employer and the workman leading to the so called 'dismissal' should not be the concern of the Industrial Court. Those matters would clearly come outside its jurisdiction under s. 20 of the Act. Unless there is agreement over the fact of dismissal having taking place leading to the representations, it is the duty of the Industrial Court to make a primary finding as to whether or not there is a dismissal having taken place in respect of the workman by his employer. If there is a finding that there was in fact no dismissal having taken place, then the award must necessarily be in favour of the employer however dissatisfied a workman is over his relationship with his employer over their service contract. On the other hand, if the finding is one of dismissal, only then be the duty of the Industrial Court to make a further inquiry to enable it to come to a decision in the form of an award as to whether that dismissal was with or without just cause or excuse.

In the matter in this appeal before us, there was a contract of employment between the appellant and the first respondent. The fact that the appellant is a workman and the first respondent is the employer is not in dispute. The primary issue to be determined is whether the ceasing of the employment of the appellant with the first respondent consequent upon the issue of the letter dated 14 April 1996 by the first respondent to the appellant amounts to a dismissal within the ambit of the Act. A copy of the letter is at p. 315 of the Appeal Record which is as follows:

RE EXPIRY OF FIXED TERM CONTRACT

Our record shows that your fixed term contract expires on the 15th April 1996. The Executive Council has decided on 13th April 1996 at its Executive Council meeting not to extend the term of your fixed term contract dated 15th April 1993 and its subsequent extension. Accordingly, we hereby give you formal notice that we shall not extend your fixed term contract.

I