Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales CITATION : Singh v Department of Community Services [2000] NSWIRComm 127 APPLICANT Parmjit Singh PARTIES : RESPONDENT Department of Community Services FILE NUMBER: IRC 5638 of 1999 CORAM: Hungerford J; Sams DP; McKenna C Appeal - Application for leave to appeal - Practice in determining leave to refrain from giving reasons - Basis for practice - Observations made relative to conclusion reached - Leave refused - Appeal dismissed. CATCHWORDS : Unfair Dismissal - Application for leave to appeal against refusal of claim that the dismissal was harsh, unreasonable or unjust - Observations made as to proceedings at first instance - Leave refused - Appeal dismissed. LEGISLATION CITED : Industrial Relations Act 1996 s 188 CASES CITED : No cases cited HEARING DATES: 07/20/2000 EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 07/20/2000 APPELLANT Mr P Singh (in person) LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr P J Newall of counsel Solicitor: Mr M McLay Department of Community Services JUDGMENT: - 3 - INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES FULL BENCH CORAM: HUNGERFORD J SAMS DP McKENNA C Thursday, 20 July 2000 Matter No IRC 5638 of 1999 PARMJIT SINGH AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES Application for leave to appeal and appeal by Parmjit Singh against a decision of Commissioner McLeay given on 28 September 1999 in Matter No IRC 5058 of 1998. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 1 The matter before the Commission is an application pursuant to s 188(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 by Parmjit Singh for leave to appeal against a decision given by Commissioner McLeay on 28 September 1999 in which the Commissioner dismissed his application relating to his alleged unfair dismissal by the respondent, the Department of Community Services, on 11 September 1998. The respondent opposed the grant of leave to appeal. 2 We heard the application for leave consistent with s 188(3), separately and without conducting a hearing into the merits of the appeal. Mr Singh appeared and represented himself on the application although, at first instance he was represented by counsel, and the respondent was represented by Mr Newall. 3 Section 188(1) provides that an appeal to a Full Bench of the Commission may be made only with leave of the Full Bench. Section 188(2) requires leave be granted if the Full Bench is of the opinion that the matter is of such importance, that in the public interest, leave should be granted. 4 In this matter, having heard the applicant in full on the question before us, we are well and comfortably satisfied that no case has been established sufficiently to meet the requisite degree of importance to warrant the grant of leave. Accordingly, we propose to refuse leave to appeal. 5 The long-standing and settled practice of the Commission in a matter requiring leave to appeal is to make the ruling but to refrain from giving reasons. There is a sound basis in a jurisdiction like this where industrial relationships in the workplace are involved for such a practice to prevail. The foundation of the practice as we understand it is the fact that if the appeal is or is not to be heard then little would be achieved in detailing why that should be so. Indeed, having in mind the industrial relationship, there will often be compelling reasons in determining leave not to canvass the merits of first instance proceedings and this may be particularly so where matters may involve personal issues, presence of witnesses and the like. 6 Nevertheless, it is appropriate in this case and as not inconsistent with the general practice, to at least make some observations relative to our decision to decline leave. 7 First, it is clear that the Commissioner's decision in a careful and detailed way reviewed the background to and development of the issues between the parties. 8 Second, the Commissioner's decision was based upon extensive evidence both oral and documentary from each party and reasoned the respective merits. 9 Third, the ultimate conclusion reached by the Commissioner on our view of the whole material was reasonable on the evidence. 10 Fourth, we do not perceive from submissions put on leave by the applicant any demonstrable or cogent matter of principle or of law which would attract leave to appeal against what the Commissioner decided. 11 We order that leave to appeal is refused. The appeal is, therefore, incompetent and is dismissed. __________________ DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.