JUDGMENT

Abdul Kadir Sulaiman J:

The applicant, a doctor/consultant considered that he had been dismissed without just cause or excuse by the first respondent. Accordingly, he made representations to the Director-General of the Industrial Relations under s. 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' . As there was no likelihood that the representations being settled, the Director-

General notified the Minister accordingly. Having considered the matter, the Minister acting under s. 20(3) thereof referred the representations to the second respondent. Upon the reference the second respondent handed down Award No. 526 of 1995 dismissing the claim of the applicant on the ground that he had resigned from the company on his own accord.

Being aggrieved with the said award, the applicant on 2 April 1996 filed a motion for leave to apply for an order of certiorari to quash the said award and for an order of mandamus to have the reference on his representations heard by another division of the Industrial Court. Leave to apply for such orders was granted by this court on 19 March 1996. On the hearing of the substantive motion, both parties agreed that their submissions would be done by writing instead of an oral one.

According to the reference by the Minister to the Industrial Court pursuant to s. 20(3) of the Act , the date of the alleged dismissal of the applicant was given as 3 June 1993. The applicant must have given this date to the Director General when he made his representations and this date must have been subsequently communicated to the Minister who in turn referred the representations to the Industrial Court for an award. There was no suggestion by the applicant that this date was wrongly quoted by the Minister. However, in his statement of case to the Industrial Court, the applicant as the claimant stated that he was dismissed without just cause and excuse on 1 June 1993. This to some extent forms the ground for the Industrial Court to hold that on 1 June 1993 the applicant resigned from the company on his own accord.

Before the Industrial Court both sides confirmed that they were on cordial working relationship and both agreed that the issue of the alleged dismissal was not on account of any misconduct on the part of the applicant. So the issue rightly determined by the Industrial Court was whether the applicant was dismissed by the first respondent and if so on what particular date or whether the applicant resigned from the company on his own accord.

The applicant joined the first respondent on 14 September 1992 as a licensed practitioner with a salary of RM1,800 per month plus other benefits. Later his salary was increased to RM2,000 per month. The contract of service was an oral one. On 30 May 1993 there was a meeting arranged by the first respondent with the applicant over the complaint received by the first respondent from its clients against the applicant. The applicant became annoyed over the complaint and indicated his own decision to leave the service of the first respondent. There was no indication from the first respondent that the applicant should leave the service. It was only the contention of the applicant that there was a hint from the first respondent that he should leave. Such being the case it was the view correctly held by the Industrial Court that the applicant should prove that he was in fact dismissed by the first respondent. This he has failed to establish. In fact when the applicant indicated that he wanted to resign from the practice, the proprietor of the first respondent persuaded him that he should stay on. Thereupon both the proprietor and the applicant agreed that the latter was to do only locum in the first respondent's clinic with effect from 1 June 1993. Both parties then mutually agreed to do away with the unwritten contract of service up to 30 May 1993. According to the applicant in his evidence before the Industrial Court, locum is only temporary