JUDGMENT

Wong Kian Kheong JCA:

A. Background

[1] The Appellant (Appellant) is a trade union which is registered under the Trade Unions Act 1959.

[2] There was a trade dispute (Trade Dispute) between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent company (1st Respondent) regarding certain terms and conditions of employment of the 1st Respondent's employees to be incorporated into the 13th Collective Agreement (13th CA). The 13th CA was supposed to take effect from 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2020.

[3] The Trade Dispute was referred by the Minister of Human Resources to a three-member panel of the Industrial Court (IC) pursuant to s 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (IRA). The three-member panel of the IC consisted of a Chairman of the IC (Chairman), one representative from the Employees' Panel (Employees' Representative) and one representative from the Employers' Panel (Employers' Representative).

B. Proceedings In The IC

[4] The IC's award (Award) was made after the IC had conducted a hearing and received evidence from witnesses called by both the Appellant and 1st Respondent [Evidence (IC)].

[5] The Appellant took exception to the following four matters decided in the Award (4 Matters):

(1) according to the unanimous decision of the three-member panel of the IC [Unanimous IC's Decision (No Increase in Maximum Rates)], there would be no "automatic" increase of RM300.00 in all the maximum rates in the salary scale of the 1st Respondent's employees (Maximum Rates);

(2) a majority of the IC, namely, the Chairman and the Employers' Representative [Majority IC's Decision (Annual Salary Increment)], accepted the following proposal by the 1st Respondent regarding annual salary increment [1st Respondent's Proposal (Annual Salary Increment)]-

(a) 3% annual salary increment for the 1st three years of employment [1st Three Years (Employment)]; and

(b) after the 1st Three Years (Employment), the employee will only receive a "monthly incentive" which will depend on-

(i) if the employee is an "office worker", the amount of monthly incentive depends on the employee's performance; and

(ii) if the employee is a "production worker", the amount of monthly incentive depends on the employee's performance and the 1st Respondent's "Production Level".

The Employees' Representative offered a dissenting decision [Dissenting Opinion of Employees' Representative (Annual Salary Increment)] which accepted the Appellant's proposal of a 6% annual salary increment [Appellant's Proposed 6% Increase (Annual Salary Increment)];

(3) a unanimous decision of the three-member panel of the IC decided that there should be a 6% salary adjustment for the 1st Respondent's employees [Unanimous IC's Decision of 6% Increase (Salary Adjustment)]; and

(4) a majority of the IC, namely, the Chairman and the Employers' Representative decided as follows regarding bonus [Majority IC's Decision (Bonus)]-

(a) there would be a fixed bonus of one month (One-Month Fixed Bonus); and

(b) any other bonus exceeding the One-Month Fixed Bonus, should be earned through the "Performance Linked Wage System" (PLWS).

C. Proceedings In The High Court

[6] The Appellant filed a Judicial Review application (JRA) in the High Court for the following orders, among others:

(1) an order of certiorari to quash the 4 Matters in the Award; and

(2) a mandamus order to direct the IC to decide on the 4 Matters.

[7] The High Court dismissed the JRA with costs of RM3,000.00 (High Court 's Decision).

[8] The Appellant lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the High Court 's Decision (This Appeal).

D. Issues

[9] The following questions arise in This Appeal:

(1) whether This Appeal has been overtaken by the following two events (after the Award)-

(a) the Appellant and 1st Respondent had entered into 14th Collective Agreement (14th CA). The 14th CA was effective from 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2023; and

(b) the 15th Collective Agreement (15th CA) was concluded by the Appellant and 1st Respondent. The 15th CA has effect from 1 April