Foo Khai Yuen v The Minister of Human

Resources [2009] MLJU 1651

Facts of the case: The Applicant was employed by Sarawak Shell Berhad as Senior Foreman
since 14.10.1974.
On 23.1.1993, the Applicant had reached the age of 55 and was informed by
Sarawak Shell Berhad that on 23.1.1993 the Applicant was to mandatorily
retire and the Sarawak Shell Berhad does not have any further intention to offer
the Applicant for short-term contract position.
Thereupon the Applicant applied to the Minister of the Ministry of Human
Resources ("the Respondent") under S. 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967
for the dispute of the termination between the Applicant and Sarawak Shell
Berhad to be decided by the Industrial Court for an award.

 By a letter dated 13.10.1994, the Respondent declined and/or

refused the Applicant's application for the said termination to be
referred to the Industrial Court.
At such, the Applicant filed into Court on 30.05.1995 against the
decision of the Respondent dated 13.10.1994 in not referring the
said matter to the Industrial Court.

 The principle of Re Amin case has been referred in this case, where, : In Re Amin [1983]2 AC 818 at 829, Lord Fraser observed:
Judicial review is concerned not with the merits of a decision but with
the manner in which the decision was made... Judicial review is
entirely different from an ordinary appeal. It is made effective by the
court quashing an administrative decision without substituting its own
decision, and is to be contrasted with an appeal where the appellate
tribunal substitutes its own decision on the merits for that of the
administrative officer.

Issues : Whether the Minister had exercised his discretion judicially in

declining and refusing the Applicant's application that this matter
to be referred to the Industrial Court for an award?

Whether the Minister had breached the procedural fairness when

he did not give any reason of his decision not to refer this case to
Industrial Court?

Held: The court agreed that the minister has acted within the
discretionary powers given to him, as the respondent taken into
account the relevant considerations.
Also the court found that the according to section 20 (3) of the
Industrial Relations Act, does not compel to give reason for
respondent refusal for the said matter to be referred to Industrial
Court for an award.
The court dismissed the motion.