JUDGMENT

KC Vohrah J:

This is an application for certiorarito issue in respect of Swedish Motor Assemblies Sdn Bhd v. Hj Md Ison Baba[1998] 3 ILR 367(the award) which was handed down by the Industrial Court after the Court of Appeal had ordered the court to determine the appropriate remedy to be awarded to Hj Md Ison bin Baba (Md Ison) who had been employed by Swedish Motor Assemblies Sdn Bhd (Swedish Motor), the respondent, at its Assembly Plant in Shah Alam.

How the Court of Appeal's order comes into the picture must be recounted.

Md Ison had joined Swedish Motor on 1 September 1975. His last drawn salary was RM6,174 per month and he was also given the use of a company maintained motor car.

Md Ison signed a letter of resignation in October 1992 that had been prepared by Swedish Motor as well as an agreement relating, inter alia, to some benefits. Md Ison said he was forced to sign the letter of resignation and considered himself to have been dismissed without just cause and filed representations under s. 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967(the Act).

Md Ison's case was subsequently referred to the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court after having had a hearing handed down Swedish Motor Assemblies Sdn Bhd v. Hj Md Ison Baba[1995] 2 ILR 198which dismissed Md Ison's claim.

Md Ison then applied to the High Court for an order of certiorarito quash this award and for an order of mandamusfor a different division of the Industrial Court to determine his case. On 1 August 1997 the High Court granted Md Ison's application.

Swedish Motor was dissatisfied with the High Court decision and appealed to the Court of Appeal. On 15 January 1998, the Court of Appeal dismissed Swedish Motor's appeal and made the following orders:

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. The order of certiorariis affirmed;

3. The order remitting the case for readjudication by the Industrial Court be and is hereby set aside and there be a finding in favour of the respondent that he was dismissed without just cause or excuse;

4. That the matter be remitted to the Industrial Court to determine the appropriate remedy to be awarded to the respondent;

5. The cost of this appeal be taxed and paid to the respondent; and

6. The deposit to be paid out to the respondent to account of is taxed costs.

The same chairman of the Industrial Court proceeded to determine the quantum payable. The Industrial Court computed the compensation for Md Ison as follows (taking 55 years as the age of retirement):

Backwages of ten months- RM 61,740

18 months of salary for his

18 years of service- RM 111,132

Total compensation- RM 172,872

The Industrial Court, however, took cognisance of the fact that on the termination of his service Md Ison had derived benefits amounting to RM167,091.37 a Volvo 740 GLE car worth RM85,000 (book value) free of charge and the sum of RM82,091.37 from Swedish Motor under its Group Pension Scheme.

The Industrial Court held that since Md Ison had derived the aforesaid benefits, it was not appropriate or fair that any other additional payments should be paid which can be construed as being inconsistent with sub-s. (4) and (5) of s. 30 of the Act.

In taking cognisance of the aforesaid benefits, the Industrial Court held that it was 'just and equitable' that Md Ison was only entitled to receive RM5,780 as the amount after deducting RM167,091.37 (the amount arising from the aforesaid benefits) from RM172,972 (the total compensation).

In attacking the award, Md Ison cites three grounds:

(1) That the Industrial Court had erred in law when it held that Md Ison was only required to be paid a sum equivalent to ten months' salary as backwages and 18 months' salary (one month for every year of completed service) as compensation in lieuof reinstatement.

(2) That the Industrial Court had erred in law and/or acted on an incorrect basis of fact when it deducted the sum of RM167,091.37 from the total compensation and backwages which were to be awarded to Md Ison especially in view