Hashim Yeop A Sani J

This is an application for an Order of Certiorari to quash an Industrial Court Award — Award No. 178/79 handed down on December 22, 1979. There were many grounds set out in the Statement filed by the applicant but during the hearing of the application only three main grounds were argued. The three grounds which form the subject of this judgment can be briefly restated as follows:—

(1) The Industrial Court exceeded its jurisdiction in holding that the first respondent was a "workman" within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act, 1967;

(2) The Industrial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by holding that the first respondent was dismissed without just cause or excuse thereby failing to recognise the right of the applicant as employer under the contract to terminate the service of the first respondent; and

(3) The Industrial Court exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding a huge sum of $522,000 purporting to be compensation in lieu of reinstatement in a matter referred to it under section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1967.

Some brief background is necessary. D an Indian citizen was engaged by the applicant as a radiologist in the hospital. D was first engaged sometime in September, 1963 and the first contract was for a period of three years subject to termination either way with three months' notice. The contract between D and the applicant was renewed a number of times until 1969 with the same terms and conditions. However, before the expiry of the contract in September, 1969 the existing contract came to be reviewed and the Hospital Board notified D in writing of certain proposed changes in the new contract offered also for three years. D ultimately accepted the reviewed contract dated October 20, 1970 effective for three years until the end of August, 1972. In September, 1972 another contract modifying slightly the terms and conditions was offered to D which terms and conditions were also accepted. It was during this period that some difficulties emerged between D and the hospital administration. In any case as a result of a meeting of the Hospital Board on November 27, 1975 a letter was written the next day to D which read as follows:—

"The Board has been considering your contract and we feel that it should be reviewed.

Accordingly, this letter will give you formal notice of termination. The notice will commence on December 1 and the contract will terminate on February 29, 1976.

The Board, however, is prepared to consider entering into a new contract with you, although the terms will not be quite the same as the existing contract."

The Industrial Court in its award dealt at length with this letter and made specific findings on the subsequent paragraphs of the same letter one of which paragraphs reads as follows:—

"Before considering renewing (meaning 'reviewing') your contract we would require to hear from you that you had taken due note of the various matters mentioned above and that you undertake that there will in no circumstances be any recurrence of unseemly or objectional behaviour and that you appreciate that your department is simply a department of the hospital and is subject to the general administration of the hospital in the same manner as all other departments."

The Industrial Court found that this among other paragraphs clearly threw several aspersions by reason of which the claimant's contract was terminated. The Industrial Court also found that the terms and conditions differed from the previous contract and some of the conditions were adverse to D. Such conditions are set out at pages 14 to 15 of the award and they are as follows:—

"(i) Claimant's designation as mere Consultant, a downgrading from Senior Consultant and as Director of Radiology and Head of the Department.

(ii) No passage of double return by air for him as an expatriate, to Calcutta and back.

(iii) No duration of the engagement, either 'permanent' as before or for a 'fixed period' as previously.

(iv) Reduction in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document