The court upheld the Minister's discretion in employment termination cases under the Industrial Relations Act, validating restructuring as a legitimate ground for termination.

[1] This is an application by the Applicant, Tennarasu S M Shanmugam, ('the Applicant') for judicial review under O 53 of the Rules of 2012 (RoC 2012) for an order for certiorari to quash the decision of the Honourable Minister of Human Resources (the 1st Respondent) dated 15 August 2014 made under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 , Act 177 (" IRA "), not to refer the Applicant's representation to the Industrial Court for adjudication ('the Decision').

[2] The Applicant had also sought for an order of a mandamus to direct the Minister to refer the unfair dismissal complaint to the Industrial Court for adjudication.

[3] Apart from the above, the Applicant had also sought for costs and other reliefs this Court deemed fit.

[4] Having perused the relevant cause papers, written submissions and heard the oral submissions of the learned Counsels for the Applicant and the 1st and 2nd Respondents, I dismissed Encl 5 with costs. I have given the broad grounds of my decision orally in open Court on the day I delivered the judgment.

Cause Papers

[5] For the purpose of this judicial review application, the following documents were filed and referred to by this Court:

(a) The Applicant's Application for Leave for Judicial Review dated 13 November 2014 ('Encl 1');

(b) Statement filed pursuant to O 53 r 3(2) of the RoC 2012 ('Encl 2');

(c) Affidavit in Support affirmed by the Applicant affirmed on 12 November 2014 ('Encl 3');

(d) Notice of Hearing for Judicial Review dated 21 January 2014 ('Encl 5');

(e) The Affidavit in Reply of the 2nd Respondent affirmed by Wong Kok Weng on 16 March 2015 ('Encl 8');

(f) The Affidavit in Reply of the 1st Respondent affirmed by Dato' Seri Richard Riot Anak Jaem on 27 March 2015 ('Encl 9');

(g) Applicant's 1st Affidavit in Reply affirmed on 29 April 2015 ('Encl 10');

(h) Applicant's 2nd Affidavit in Reply affirmed on 05 May 2015 ('Encl 11');

(i) Applicant's Additional Affidavit affirmed on 29 April 2015 ('Encl 12');

(j) The 2nd Affidavit in Reply of the 2nd Respondent affirmed by Wong Kok Weng on 05 June 2015 ('Encl 15');

(k) The 2nd Affidavit in Reply of the 1st Respondent affirmed by Dato' Seri Richard Riot Anak Jaem on 18 June 2015 ('Encl 16'); and

(l) Applicant's 3 rd Affidavit in Reply affirmed on 29 April 2015 ('Encl 17').

Grounds Of Challenge

[6] The Applicant had mounted his attack on the decision of the 1st Respondent based on illegality and irrationality. The full grounds relied by the Applicant were as set out in Encl 2, the Statement Pursuant to O 53 of the RoC 2012. Briefly the grounds are as follows:

(a) The 1st Respondent had exceeded its jurisdiction when he refused to refer the representation to the Industrial Court for adjudication;

(b) The 1st Respondent had breached the policy and objective of the IRA as the issue of dismissal of an employee without just cause and excuse involves issues of law which is within the realm of the Industrial Court;

(c) The Applicant had raised issues such as Restructuring Exercise, LIFO Policy and breaches of the terms and conditions of employment which are best left to the Industrial Court to resolve as these are issues of law; and

(d) The facts and issues raised by the Applicant, touching the termination due to redundancy of post can only be determined by the Industrial Court after a full blown trial.

Duty Of The Minister Under Section 20 (3) Of The IRA

[7] This judicial review application is concerned with the exercise of discretion of the 1st Respondent under s 20(3) of the IRA . In the often-quoted case of Minister of Labour, Malaysia v. Lie Seng Fatt , [1990] 2 MLJ 9 , the Supreme Court ruled that under s 20(3) of the , the Minister for Human Resources is vested with a very wide discretion whether to refer or not to refer a representation to th