JUDGMENT

Vincent Ng Kim Khoay J:

The first respondent was an employee of the applicant. It was alleged by the applicant that since 1988 the first respondent was frequently absenting from work without leave. The first respondent was dismissed after the applicant had duly complied with the caution system incorporated into the collective agreement (exhibit MRH 6 of Enclosure 1) the common ground of both parties being that no domestic inquiry was held before such dismissal. The first respondent then claimed unfair dismissal and the matter was referred to the Industrial Court under s. 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("the Act") .

The applicant's main contention is that the Industrial Court had embarked on a mission to interpret the Collective Agreement (C.A.) and General Conditions (GC) governing the employment of the 1st respondent by holding that the two conditions - at page 13 of the CA under caption 'Union Representation at Enquiries' and at page 21 of the GC under caption 'Discipline', paragraph 2, in section XXI - made it mandatory for the applicants to hold a domestic enquiry.

There was no express conditions in the CA or GC requiring the applicants to hold a domestic