JUDGMENT

Salleh Abas LP:

This is an appeal from the decision of Harun J issuing an order of certiorari quashing an award made by the Industrial Court. The case, we were told, raises an important question of law as to whether or not the doctrine of constructive dismissal is applicable in the interpretation of s. 20 of our Industrial Relations Act 1967.

Before we go into this question, here are the brief facts of the case: the appellant Wong Chee Hong was an employee of the respondent company. He entered the respondent company's service on 31 December 1968 as a junior executive assistant on a salary scale of RM450 x 25 x 12 yrs = 750 (inclusive of 80% basic and 20% Cola). After a short spell of service in Ipoh, with effect from 1 July 1970 he was promoted to the post of assistant supervisor responsible to one Mr. Chu Chi Wang, the respondent company's manager at its Kuala Lumpur office. In that capacity he was required to act as manager of the respondent company's Odeon theatre at Batu Pahat. Later he was further promoted and became the supervisor of Cinema Operations Central and East Coast States. Again, on 1 July 1980 he was further promoted to be the respondent company's personnel and industrial relations manager (P & IRM) for the whole of Malaysia. In that position he was listed as one of the several heads of departments within the respondent company's organization, all of whom including the appellant reported directly to the managing director. As personnel and industrial relations manager the appellant's duty was to negotiate on behalf of the respondent company for a new collective agreement and to implement it. Negotiations were held and these ended in the Industrial Court Award No. 69 of 1985 dated 15 April 1985.

The trouble started after the appellant had taken steps to implement the award. On 14 May 1985 he was called to the office of the managing director (MD), who curtly told him (the appellant) that he was being transferred to the Cinema Operations Department and, as such, he would be accountable to one Mr. Cheah Kong Fatt, and that his own department (Personnel and Industrial Relations Department) would be given to his assistant. To confirm this new arrangement, the MD wrote a letter to the appellant to that effect dated 14 May 1985. On inquiry by the appellant as to his new job functions, the MD in a letter dated 22 May 1985 informed him that with effect from 1 June 1985 the appellant was seconded to manage the respondent company's cinema theatre at the Overseas Union Garden, Kuala Lumpur and to take charge of the theatre from one Mr. Kan Man Fatt. He was also told in the same letter that the terms and conditions of his service remained unchanged. On 30 May 1985 the MD again abruptly issued an instruction to the appellant to hand over all files, working papers and documents relating to the Personnel and Industrial Relations Department to him (MD) before he (the appellant) left to take over the charge of the cinema theatre at the Overseas Union Garden, Kuala Lumpur.

Unhappy at the turn of events arising out of what the appellant thought that he was merely doing his duty in negotiating a new collective agreement and taking steps to implement it, on 31 May 1985 he wrote to the MD stating that he was not prepared to accept the transfer order and regarded the MD's instructions as a breach of contract entitling him to hold the respondent company liable for dismissing him without just cause or excuse. The MD replied denying dismissing the appellant because his terms and conditions of service remained unaltered and further because the secondment to manage a cinema theatre was "a normal part of managerial exchange of staff between the cinemas and head office so as to promote a better understanding among office staff and the operational level cinema staff."

On 1 June the appellant did not report for duty as instructed by the MD. This prompted Mr. Cheah Kong Fatt, the Divisional Manager Cinema Operations, to whom the appellan