JUDGMENT

Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

Introduction

This is an appeal brought against the decision of the learned judge in the High Court at Kuala Lumpur whereby he quashed an award of the Industrial Court that had been handed down in the appellant's favour. At the heart of this appeal lies the vexed question whether the High Court acted within the parameters of its certiorarijurisdiction. The essence of the dispute would appear to centre on a complaint by the appellant that the learned judge had indeed exercised appellate jurisdiction in proceedings that were plainly not an appeal. The factual matrix that forms the background to this appeal may be shortly stated.

Background Facts

At all material times the appellant was the controller-processing of the respondent company. According to the evidence that he gave before the Industrial Court, he was in charge of all palm oil mills operated by the respondent. On 6 August 1993, the respondent sent a memorandum to the appellant. Annexed to that memorandum was an organisation chart. That chart was later amended. But nothing turns upon the amendment. Having received these documents, the appellant took the view that he had been demoted and that his job responsibilities had been substantially reduced. He took umbrage. He wrote to the respondent on 20 August 1993 complaining about his alleged reduction in rank. In that letter, he called upon the respondent rectify matters not later than 24 August 1993. He said that if that did not happen, he would consider himself as being dismissed from the company with effect from 25 August 1993. According to the respondent, this letter was followed by a meeting between the appellant and one Mr. Lee Yew Foong (the respondent's general manager-engineering & processing) on 24 August 1993. Lee gave evidence that the appellant had, at that meeting, been assured of a restoration of his position. There is in evidence a memorandum dated 1 September 1993 from Lee Yew Foong to the appellant referring to the meeting in question. However, there is also evidence to show that this memorandum dated 1 September 1993 was only received by the appellant on 3 September 1993 when the appellant called at the respondent's premises to surrender the car given him by the respondent. In the meantime, another letter had been written by the respondent's Divisional Director of Plantations to the appellant. It is dated 1 September 1993. The appellant received it on the very next day. This letter is of some importance and for that reason, we would set out its main body below:

I am surprised to receive your letter dated 25 August 1993 on 1 September 1993 despite Mr. Lee Yew Fong's advice to you on 24 August 1993 that I have agreed to restore status quoin respect of your duties and responsibilities as Controller-Processing.

As assured by Mr. Lee Yew Fong he has already confirmed in writing on 1 September 1993 of his discussion with you.

Under the circumstances your decision to leave the company unilaterally and on your own accord without giving the company three (3) months' notice tantamounts to abscondment of employment with the company with effect from 25 August 1993.

You are hereby required to pay the company three (3) months salary in lieuof notice within two weeks from the date hereof failing which legal action will be taken to recover the sum from you.

You are also hereby required to hand over the company's car to the Administration Manager by 3 September 1993.

You may at any time during office hours and with prior notice to the General Manager-Engineering & Processing collect your personal effects from your office.

With regard to other administrative matters, you will be formally advised by Manpower Department in due course.

Later, the appellant, true to his earlier letter, considered himself dismissed and lodged a complaint with the Director General of Industrial Relations. Following the conciliation proceedings prescribed by s. 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967("the Act"), the disp