JUDGMENT

Harun Hashim SCJ:

The respondent in both these appeals was employed by the appellant in Rayuan Sivil No. 02-44-91 (Magnum) as an accountant on 1 September 1978. On 1 August 1985 he was romoted to the position of general manager (4-D Operations) with an increase in monthly salary to RM8,000 with effect from 1 January 1986. On 1 April 1987 there was a change of name from gaming department to gaming division and the respondent was appointed head of that division.

By letter of 24 June 1987 Magnum informed the respondent that following a review of the company's management requirements, it was decided to abolish the position of head, gaming division and that he would be retrenched (with retrenchment benefits) with effect from 1 October 1987. According to Magnum, the function of head of gaming division could be performed by the Group general manager, as the latter's duties had since decreased. According to the respondent, however, there was no justification to abolish the position of head of gaming division as the duties of that position had not changed with re-organisation and it was also the principal income earner of the company. The respondent appealed against the retrenchment. There were discussions and on 25 September 1989 Magnum offered respondent the position of manager (special functions). The respondent rejected the offer on the grounds that what was promised him verbally during discussions was not reflected in the written offer.

The respondent considered that he had been dismissed without just cause or excuse and accordingly on 22 October 1987 made representations to the Director-general of Industrial Relations under s. 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The Director-general held a conciliation meeting on 11 November 1987 and notified to the Minister on 27 August 1988 that there was no likelihood of settlement. On 8 October 1988 the Minister decided not to refer the representations to the Industrial Court. The respondent then applied to the High Court for orders of certiorari and mandamus. The learned Judge granted these orders. Hence these appeals before us.

The central issue in these appeals is whether the Minister is required by law to give reasons for his decision. Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act (before its amendment on 10 February 1989) provided:

(1) Where a workman who is not a member of a trade union of workmen considers that he has been dismissed without just cause or excuse by his employer he may, within thirty days of the dismissal, make representations in writing to the Director general to be reinstated in his former employment, the representations may be filed at the office of the Director general nearest to the place of employment from which the workman was dismissed.

(2) Upon receipt of the representations the Director general shall take such steps as he may consider necessary or expedient so that an expeditious settlement thereof is arrived at; where the Director general is satisfied that there is no likelihood of the representations being settled, he shall notify the Minister accordingly.

(3) Upon receiving the notification of the Director general under subsection (2), the Minister may, if he thinks fit, refer the representations to the Court for an award.

(4) Where an award has been made under subsection (3), the award shall operate as a bar to any action for damages by the workman in any Court in respect of wrongful dismissal.

(5) ...

The Minister (appellant in Rayuan Sivil No. 01-3-1991) contends that he is not required by law to give any reason for his decision. It is an exercise of ministerial discretion in which policy decisions come into play. In refusing to refer the representations to the Industrial Court, he is not deciding on the merits of the dismissal or otherwise. It is a matter of policy that the respondent should not be permitted to use the Industrial Court as the forum to resolve the dispute between him and his employer but if he has a good case he should sue t