COURT OF APPEAL
(a) Appeal Against High Court Order – Whether Industrial Court Exercised Function Of Criminal Court In Determining Misconduct Of Employee
In the Court of Appeal case of KA Sanduran Nehru Ratnam v. I-Berhad; [2007] 1 ILR 257, the respondent company dismissed the appellant employee for taking 1.5 litres of thinner from the respondent’s premises without authorisation. The Industrial Court had held that the appellant’s dismissal was not only without just cause and excuse but also unreasonable, not in good conscience and excessively harsh. The Industrial Court also held that since the appellant was gainfully employed it would be better that there be no order of reinstatement. The Industrial Court consequently ordered the respondent to make monetary compensation to the appellant consisting of back wages and compensation in lieu of reinstatement. However, the High Court quashed the said award and ordered that the matter be remitted to the Industrial Court to be dealt with accordingly before a different panel. Hence, the appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Held
The learned judge adopted the correct approach when he said that what matters was not the type of thinner taken out from the respondent’s premises but the taking out of the 1.5 litres of thinner without authorisation. It was not disputed that the thinner was taken out without authorisation. The learned judge was also right when he found that the Industrial Court had committed an error of law in finding that the thinner that was taken out by the appellant was unwanted thinner. Further, the learned chairman had also wrongly taken into consideration that the respondent only suffered a minimal loss as it only involved 1.5 litres of thinner. The value of the thinner taken out of the factory by the appellant was immaterial. What was material was that the thinner was the respondent’s property and the appellant was not authorised to take it out of the respondent’s premises.
The main and only function of the Industrial Court in dealing with a reference under section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 is to determine whether the misconduct or irregularities complained of by the management as to the grounds of dismissal were in fact committed by the workman. If so, whether such grounds constitute just cause and excuse for the dismissal. The High Court will not interfere with finding of facts by the Industrial Court unless the same are completely unsupported by evidence. In the instant appeal, the finding of facts made by the learned Chairman could not be supported. Moreover, the learned Chairman introduced technicalities of the court of law instead of going into the substantial merits of the case. In determining the misconduct of the appellant, the Industrial Court proceeded as if it was exercising the function of a criminal court. As such, the appellant could not contend that the High Court had acted as a court of appeal under the circumstances of the instant appeal. From a reading of the learned judge’s decision, this court was satisfied that he appreciated that judicial review was not an appeal from the decision but a review of the manner in which the decision was made.
The learned judge was perfectly correct in ordering that the matter be remitted for re-adjudication before another Chairman of the Industrial Court although this relief was not specifically prayed for in the respondent’s application.
Court Of Appeal dismissed appeal and affirmed orders of the High Court. Case to be remitted to Industrial Court for re-adjudication before another Chairman.
