JUDGMENT

Richard Malanjum JCA:

Introduction

This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court made on 29 December 1997 granting an order of certiorarito the respondent thereby quashing the award of the Industrial Court given to the appellant on 16 June 1993.

Briefly it was the finding of the Industrial Court that the dismissal of the appellant as the General Manager of the respondent on 12 February 1988 was without just cause in that the dismissal was 'an injustice' and that the domestic inquiry held to consider the charges against the appellant was biased. The appellant was therefore awarded backwages by way of compensation in lieuof reinstatement videAward No. 179 of 1993.

In quashing the award the High Court came to the conclusion that it was perverse and irrational. Indeed the learned judge was of the view that the crucial findings of the Industrial Court were clearly unreasonable and irrational in that no reasonable tribunal in similar circumstances could have come to such conclusions.

Background Facts

It is not in dispute that the appellant began working for the respondent in 1977 when he was a management trainee. In 1980 he was appointed the Operations Manager. Subsequently he was appointed the General Manager for the respondent. Throughout his career with the respondent the appellant had Mr. Simon Chong as his superior.

On 27 October 1987 the appellant was suspended by the respondent pending further inquiry on the allegations against him.

On 24 December 1987 the appellant was informed that an inquiry would be held on 5 January 1988 in relation to two allegations against him, namely, for his conduct in endorsing on the two deeds of assignment in favour of two banks. The two allegations are as follows:

(a) Your endorsement in a deed of assignment dated 20.12.1985 and executed by Sa-Mula Jadi Sdn. Bhd. in favour of Arab-Malaysian Finance Berhad in respect of SG-001. In the endorsement you stated that the whole of the purchase price of RM2,722,500.00 payable by Sa-Mula Jadi had been paid in full on that date when in fact this was not the case.

(b) Your endorsement in a deed of assignment dated 25.04.1986 and executed by Sa-Mula Jadi Sdn. Bhd. in favour of Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd in relation to Basement 001. In the endorsement you stated that the whole of the purchase price of RM3,800,000.00 payable by Sa-Mula Jadi had been paid in full on that date when in fact this was not the case.

The result of the inquiry was that the appellant was found guilty on both the allegations for gross negligence and misconduct in the discharge of his duties as the General Manager of the respondent. On that basis the appellant was dismissed.

Incidentally despite learned counsel for the appellant before us submitting that the High Court made a wrong assumption that the endorsement on the two deeds were false, we do not think there was any dispute that the balances of the purchase prices were not settled and that the endorsement was false.

Arising there-from the appellant made a representation under s. 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967.

Before The Industrial Court

The main thrust of the appellant's case before the Industrial Court was that he acted as he did in endorsing on the two deeds because he was merely carrying out the orders of his superior, Mr. Simon Chong who was then the Executive Director of the respondent.

The Industrial Court accepted the explanations and reasons given by the appellant for endorsing on the two deeds and held that they constituted a reasonable, valid and 'successful defence of charges of negligence and misconduct'. And the conclusion was that the dismissal of the appellant was a 'glaring injustice and a dismissal without just cause or excuse'.

Other factors taken into account by the Industrial Court were that there was undue influence upon the appellant by his superior and that the police did not take any action against the appellant although there was a report lodged.

In The High Court

In ma