JUDGMENT

Evrol Mariette Peters JC:

Introduction

[1] This was an application ("this Application") for judicial review filed by the applicant, pursuant to to quash the Award of the 1st respondent ("Industrial Court") made pursuant to the applicant's claim for unfair dismissal against the 2nd respondent, under s 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The 3rd respondent was joined as a party to the proceedings.

The Background Facts

[2] The 2nd respondent is a Government-linked company, whilst the 3rd respondent company is a shareholder of the 2nd respondent. The applicant was the Chief Operations Officer ("COO") of the 2nd respondent.

[3] Based on the findings of an Audit Findings Report prepared by an audit team engaged by the 2nd respondent, a show cause letter dated 8 March 2018 was issued to the applicant for three charges levelled against him.

[4] A Domestic Inquiry ("DI") Notice dated 5 April 2018 was issued, informing the applicant of a DI to be held on 20 April 2018. On 16 May 2018, the DI panel found the applicant guilty of the first and second charges, and recommended dismissal. The recommendation of the DI panel was accepted by the Management of the 2nd respondent, and pursuant thereto, the dismissal took effect from 18 May 2018. The applicant's claim for unlawful dismissal was heard before the learned Industrial Court Judge ("ICJ") of the 1st respondent ("the Industrial Court").

[5] At the outset, the learned ICJ took the view that the DI proceedings held was fundamentally flawed. As such, the issue of whether the applicant was guilty of any misconduct had to be proved by the 2nd respondent by way of pleadings and evidence produced at the Industrial Court.

[6] The learned ICJ found the applicant guilty of the first charge ("the Charge") only, which reads:

"You have abused your position and authority by including your son, Harris Hassan Husney, into the travelling package for the 'Technical Visit to Auburn, Alabama USA from 21 to 30 December 2017 as part of IDJSB's expenses. IDJSB had paid RM52,830 on behalf of Harris Hassan Husney on 14 December 2017, which is prior to the trip. It is also noted that you, as the Chief Operating Officer (COO) of IDJSB, have approved the payment vouchers (PVs) for both the payments and noted in writing to the Finance & Corporate Affairs (FCA) to make the payments. It is further noted that upon reconciliation by PNL Travel Sdn Bhd, the total amount of RM50,280 is chargeable to Harris Hassan Husney. The name of Harris Hassan Husney is included in the list of delegates chargeable to IDJSB. You are hereby charged for committing fraud against the company by authorising IDJSB to make unauthorised payment for your son, Harris Hassan Husney for the above said trip.

[Emphasis Added]"

[7] On 16 April 2020, the applicant filed this Application which was dismissed for the following reasons.

The Applicable Law

[8] In the landmark House of Lords case of Council of Civil Service Unions ("CCSU") v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, the grounds of illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety, which formed the basis of judicial review, were expounded by Lord Diplock in the following passages:

"By "illegality" as a ground for judicial review I mean that the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. Whether he has or not is par excellence a justiciable question to be decided, in the event of dispute, by those persons, the judges, by whom the judicial power of the state is exercisable.

By "irrationality" I mean what can by now be succinctly referred to as "Wednesbury unreasonableness" (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223). It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. Whether a decision falls within this category is a q