Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

Introduction

[1] On 3 August 1994, the High Court at Kuala Lumpur, in proceedings commenced by the respondent Union, granted certiorari and quashed an award of the Industrial Court dated 6 January 1994. It also issued mandamus directing it to reconsider the matter according to law. The appellant company, being dissatisfied with this decision has appealed. This Court heard the appeal on 10 and 12 April 1995, and reserved judgment. I now hand down the decision that I have arrived at and the reasons for the same. For convenience, I shall, throughout this judgment, refer to the Industrial Court as "the Court", the Industrial Relations Act, 1967 as "the Act", and the Industrial Rules 1967 as "the Rules".

Background

[2] On 2 June 1988, the Court handed down an award ("the first Award"), in respect of a trade dispute referred to it by the Minister under s 26 of the Act. It concerned a complaint by the respondent Union that several of its members had been dismissed by the appellant company without just cause or excuse. By the first Award the Court struck down the dismissal of some of the workmen as being unjustified. It upheld the dismissal of others In respect of those workmen whose dismissals had been struck down, the Court awarded the following relief:

(3) (i) The company shall reinstate claimants no 4 to no 19 of Schedule 'A' into their former jobs without loss of seniority with effect from the 11 June 1988;

(ii) Within two (2) weeks of the said claimants no 4 to no 19 of schedule 'A' reporting for duty the company shall pay through the Union's Solicitors their backwages from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement calculated at 26 days per month in accordance with the daily wages set out in schedule 'A' of this Award.Their contributions to the Employees Provident Fund for the above period shall be deducted from the respective backwages.

[3] The first Award is reported in [1988] 1 MELR 405; [1988] 1 ILR 489.

[4] As may be seen, the Court merely awarded wages It made no mention of other emoluments, such as the special relief allowance or bonus There is a reference to these two items in the collective agrement which the respondent had with the appellant. They appear in arts 18 and 20 of that agreement. These two articles when translated read as follows:

Article 18 Special Relief Allowance

Every worker covered by this agreement shall be paid a special relief allowance of RM30 per month and an additional special relief allowance of RM2.30 per day for every actual day worked inclusive of annual leave.This additional allowance shall not be paid if the worker:

18.1. Is granted non hospitalised medical leave

18.2. Is on his weekly off day

18.3. Is absent from work for whatever reason

Article 20 Bonus

20.1. The company shall pay bonus based on the performance and profitability of the company for that particular year to all regular workers Workers who have not completed one year service for that particular year shall be paid on a pro rata basisDiscussions on the payment of bonus shall be held every year between the union and the employer.

20.2. Payment of bonus to workers in accordance with 20.1 be based on time basic salary of the workers as at 31st December every year.

20.3. Workers who resigned or are terminated before 31st December or before the date of declaration of payment of bonus by the board of directors will not be eligible for bonus payment for that particular year.

[5] The appellant, in what it regarded as full compliance of the terms of the first Award, effected payment of all wages due to the reinstated workmen. But it did not pay arrears of the special relief allowance or the bonuses declared during the period these workmen remained out of employment. The respondent was dissatisfied with this result. After a preliminary exchange of correspondence it applied to the Court for an interpretation of the first Award and arts 18 and 20 of the collective agreement. That application was made pursuant to s 33 (1)