Thavakumar A/L Kandiahpillai v 1. ) SapuraOMV Upstream (Sarawak) Inc 2. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA

Case Significance

Confirms the confined grounds for judicial review of an Industrial Court award, holding that an unfair-dismissal award will stand absent procedural non-compliance, illegality, irrationality or excess of jurisdiction, the reviewing court not sitting in appeal on the merits.

This High Court decision in Kuala Lumpur concerns an application for judicial review to quash an award of the Industrial Court in an unfair-dismissal reference, and the confined grounds on which such an award may be reviewed. The applicant, a former employee, had pursued a claim under section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 against his former employer, and the Industrial Court had disposed of that claim by an award made in 2023. Dissatisfied with the award, the applicant applied under Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 for leave to bring judicial review and for orders of certiorari to quash the award and mandamus, joining the employer and the Industrial Court as respondents. The Court examined the award against the established public-law grounds of review — whether it was tainted by procedural non-compliance, illegality or irrationality, or whether the Industrial Court had acted beyond or in excess of its jurisdiction. It emphasised that judicial review is concerned with the legality and process of the decision rather than with its merits, so that the reviewing court does not sit in appeal on the Industrial Court's findings of fact. On examining the cause papers and submissions, the Court found no procedural non-compliance, illegality or irrationality, and concluded that the Industrial Court had correctly surmised the law and the facts and reached a proper legal determination on the claimant's claim. Finding no reason to interfere, it held that the applicant had failed to prove his case and dismissed the judicial review application with costs of RM5,000, to be paid within thirty days. The decision illustrates the deference accorded to the Industrial Court's findings on a judicial review, and that an award will stand unless a recognised public-law ground of challenge is made out. The decision also reflects the constitutional division of labour between the specialist industrial tribunal and the supervisory court: the Industrial Court determines the merits of a dismissal, while the High Court on judicial review confines itself to policing the legality and fairness of that determination, intervening only where a recognised public-law defect is shown.