JUDGMENT

Chang Min Tat FJ FJ:

I will ask Abdoolcader J to deliver the first judgment.

JUDGMENT

Abdoolcader J (delivering oral judgment):

The appellant's employment as a mandore in Sungei Chinoh Estate was terminated by the respondents by his dismissal on 16 June last year. The appellant took up the question of his dismissal through his Union with the Minister of Labour who in turn on 24 January this year referred the matter under the provisions of s. 26(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1967 to the

Industrial Court as a trade dispute within the definition thereof in s. 2 of the Act. This was fixed for hearing before the Industrial Court last month but was postponed as a result of some oversight on the part of the Union's solicitors.

In the meantime the appellant refused to vacate the quarters he occupied in the estate as a prerequisite of his employment despite requests by the respondents who accordingly commenced these proceedings for an injunction and damages, and then applied for and obtained an interlocutory injunction in effect for possession of the quarters pending trial, and that is now the subjectmatter of this appeal before us.

I would make two observations on the interlocutory injunction that was sought and granted.

The first is that it is couched in prohibitory terms restraining the appellant until the trial of the suit from remaining in the quarters but it is in effect a mandatory injunction. Equity looks to the substance and intent and not to the form, and the interlocutory injunction sought and granted although prohibitory in language is mandatory in substance and effect (Shepherd Homes Ltd. v. Sandham [1970] 3 WLR 348, 359 (at p. 359); Hounslow Local Borough Council v. Twickenham Garden Developments Ltd. [1970] 3 WLR 538, 570-1 (at p. 570-1), and as I said in my judgment in Wah Loong (Jelapang) Tin Mine Sendirian Berhad v. Chai Nyen Yiok [1975] 2 MLJ 109 an interim or interlocutory mandatory injunction is never granted before trial save in exceptional and extremely rare cases.

The second is that the interlocutory injunction virtually gives to the respondents on their claim the full relief actually sought to be secured at the final hearing, as I do not seriously think the respondents are really concerned about their claim for damages against a labourer. As I said however in Wah Loong [1975] 2 MLJ 109 the Court is not precluded from making such an order when the matter is viewed on a balance of convenience in the light of the principle enunciated in Woodford v. Smith [1997] 1 ILR 64 .

Turning now to the effect of the reference of the appellant's dismissal to the Industrial Court as a trade dispute in the light of the fact that the Industrial Court now has power to make an award for the reinstatement or re-employment of a workman, a serious inroad was made in November 1971 into the general rule that the Court will not decree specific performance of a contract of personal relationship or service by the decision of the Court of Appeal in England in Hill v. CA Parsons & Co. Ltd. [1972] 1 Ch 305 which appears to me to be very pertinent and useful for the purposes of this appeal.

In Hill [1972] 1 Ch 305 the defendant company agreed with a trade union that after a period of 12 months it should be a condition of service for their technical staff to be members of the union. The plaintiff was an engineer employed by the defendants since 1936. He had recently joined another union of professional engineers. By letter of 19 May 1971 the defendants gave the plaintiff one month's notice of a change of his conditions of employment whereby he was required to become a member of the union. He did not join the union, and by letter of 30 July 1971 the defendants gave the plaintiff and 37 other professional employees a month's notice of termination of employment. The plaintiff was then aged 63, earning a salary of STG3,000 a year and he was due to retire in two years' time. By writ of 13 August 1971, he claimed an injunctio