JUDGMENT

Wan Afrah Ibrahim JC:

This is an application made by the applicant for an order of certiorari to quash part of the Industrial Court Award no. 612 dated 18 July 2002 when the Industrial Court had set aside the dismissal of the first respondent by the applicant and awarded monetary compensation to him.

Grounds For Application

(1) the second respondent acted without jurisdiction and/or in excess of jurisdiction and erred in law when it decided that notwithstanding the first respondent's failure to comply with procedure (banking), he ought not to have been dismissed by the applicant;

(2) the second respondent acted without jurisdiction and/or exceeded its jurisdiction and committed an error of law when it held that because there was an absence of deliberate or criminal intent on the part of the first respondent, the dismissal should be set aside;

(3) the second respondent's decision to set aside the dismissal was a decision that was illegal and without power in as much as the second respondent had failed to properly appreciate and apply the relevant legal principles that govern misconduct due to non-compliance with procedures (banking);

(4) the second respondent erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction when it relied ons. 30(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 as the basis to ignore the ramifications of a misconduct due to non-compliance with procedures (banking);

(5) the second respondent's decision to set aside the dismissal was in all the circumstances a decision that no other person or tribunal similarly circumstanced would have arrived at. It was therefore a decision that was plainly irrational and/or unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense;

(6) the second respondent acted in excess of jurisdiction and/or without jurisdiction and erred in law when it decided to allow the first respondent monetary compensation in the manner it did;

(7) the second respondent's decision to award compensation to the first respondent in the form of arrears in salary, bonuses and increments for the period 28 August 1999 to 7 November 2001 (which is about 27 months) as well compensation in lieu of reinstatement (which is about six months), albeit with 50% reduction for contributory conduct, was illegal and without power or authority;

(8) the second respondent's decision to grant monetary compensation to the first respondent was in all the circumstances a decision that no other person or tribunal similarly circumstanced would have arrived at. It is accordingly a decision that is irrational and/or unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense.

Undisputed Facts

The applicant dismissed the first respondent after its domestic inquiry panel found that the first respondent had failed to comply with banking procedures in handling cash in transit and caused a loss of RM100,000 to the bank.

The Industrial Court had upheld the finding of the applicant that the first respondent had misconducted himself. The first respondent had not challenged that part of the decision of the Industrial Court.

The Industrial Court went on to order monetary compensation to the first respondent in the form of arrears in salary, bonuses and increments from the date of his termination to the last date of hearing and compensation in lieu of reinstatement with 50 percent reduction for contributory conduct.

Issue For Determination

Can the Industrial Court upon affirming an employer's finding that an employee had misconducted himself by breaching banking procedures, nevertheless interfered with the decision by the employer to dismiss the employee?

Judicial Review Legal Principles

Before I proceed with the arguments put forward by both parties, I reminded myself of the legal principles in judicial review as enunciated in the case ofMajlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v. Syarikat Bekerjasama Serbaguna Sungai Gelugur [1999] 3 CLJ 65,Syarikat Kenderaan Melayu Kelantan v. Transport Workers Union [1995] 2 CLJ 748 and R Ramachandran v. Industrial Court of Malaysia [1997] 1 CLJ 147.

Applicant's