Administrative law : Judicial review - Certiorari - Application to quash award of Industrial Court - Dismissed Executive Director did not claim for reinstatement in statement of case - Whether Industrial Court had no jurisdiction and erred in awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement and backwages - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s 30(5)

The 1st respondent, who was an Executive Director of the applicant, had made a claim to the Industrial Court ('the 2nd respondent') that she had been dismissed from her position by the applicant without just cause and excuse. The 2nd respondent had decided in favour of the 1st respondent and awarded her compensation in lieu of reinstatement and backwages for the wrongful dismissal. The applicant objected to the award contending that the 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction to hand down the award because the 1st respondent's evidence in her cross-examination indicated that she did not wish to be reinstated. The issue to be decided by this court was whether the 2nd respondent had erred when it dismissed the applicant's objection.

Held (allowing the applicant's application):

(1) The 2nd respondent erred when it dismissed the applicant's objection that it had no jurisdiction to hand down the award because there was clear evidence that the 1st respondent had abandoned the claim for reinstatement as prayed for in her statement of case. (para 78)

(2) The 2nd respondent erred when it failed to take into consideration the decision of the 1st respondent not to pray for reinstatement in her examinationin-chief, and the 1st respondent's testimony in cross-examination in which she had emphatically and without qualification stated that she did not want back her former job in the applicant. (para 81)

(3)Section 30(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 provides that the 2nd respondent shall act in accordance with equity and good conscience when making its award. Therefore, the 2nd respondent erred when it failed to apply the trite law of equity to the fact and circumstances of the instant case that he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. (para 93)