Respondents' Submissions [17] The First and Second Respondents submit that the DGIR acted strictly within his statutory powers under sections 9(1A), 9(1B) and 9(1D) of the IRA 1967. [18] The Respondents emphasize that the "capacity test" concerns the actual job functions performed, not the job title or the employer's restructuring exercise. The critical inquiry is whether the employees' actual daily functions place them within managerial, executive, confidential or security capacity. [19] The Respondents contend that the DGIR's officers conducted face-to-face interviews with substantial representatives from each of the five disputed positions. A total of 27 employees were interviewed. There is no statutory requirement that every single employee must be interviewed. The test concerns positions, not headcount. [20] The DGIR affirmed affidavits explaining the investigative process, including conciliation meetings, ground-level interviews, and consideration of job scope. The Respondents rely on the Court of Appeal decisions in Alliance Bank Malaysia Bhd v. Menteri Sumber Manusia and Bank Muamalat Malaysia Bhd v. Menteri Sumber Manusia, both affirmed by the Federal Court, which held that there is no statutory obligation to disclose investigation reports and that it suffices for the DGIR to explain the steps taken in affidavit form. [21] The Respondents further argue that the Applicant's reliance on Etika Beverages is misplaced, as the legal principles governing capacity test remain those established in Alliance Bank and Bank Muamalat. [22] The Respondents submit that the DGIR's finding that the employees continued to perform substantially similar daily functions as before promotion and had merely lost benefits under the collective agreement provides a rational factual basis for the decision. [23] According to the Respondents, there is no illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety warranting intervention. D) COURT'S FINDINGS [24] Having considered the affidavits, contemporaneous documents and submissions of parties, this Court finds no merit in the present judicial review application. [25] Section 9(1A), (1B) and (1D) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 establish a specific statutory mechanism for resolving disputes concerning whether workmen are employed in managerial, executive, confidential or security capacity. [26] The statutory duty of the DGIR is not to determine corporate restructuring policy. Nor is it to decide whether a promotion exercise is genuine in corporate terms. The DGIR's statutory task is narrow and precise: to determine the capacity in which the employees are employed, based on their actual job functions. [27] The wording of section 9(1B) is deliberately broad. The DGIR "may take such steps or make such enquiries as he may consider necessary or expedient." This confers administrative discretion as to the manner of investigation. [28] In the present case, the evidence shows that the DGIR: i. Received the complaint under section 9(1A); ii. Conducted conciliation meetings; iii. Directed officers to carry out interviews at the workplace; iv. Interviewed representatives from each of the disputed positions; v. Considered the job scope and responsibilities of those employees; and vi. Delivered a written decision pursuant to section 9(1D). [29] Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the DGIR acted squarely within the statutory framework prescribed by the IRA 1967. [30] This Court is unable to accept the Applicant's contention that the investigation was rendered unlawful merely because not every affected employee was interviewed. The statute imposes no such mandatory requirement. The inquiry concerns the nature of the positions in question rather than the numerical headcount of employees occupying those positions. [31] In the present case, representatives from each of the five disputed positions were interviewed by the investigating officers. More importantly, there is no evidence before this Court demonstrating that employees who were not interviewed performed materially different duties from those who were interviewed. In the absence of such evidence, this Court finds no basis to conclude that the investigative process was incomplete or irrational. [32] This Court further finds no procedural unfairness in the manner the investigation was conducted. The DGIR affirmed affidavits explaining the chronology of meetings, interview dates, investigative steps undertaken and the reasoning process leading to the impugned decision. [33] There is no statutory requirement for the DGIR to produce or disclose the investigation report and it suffices that the DGIR explains the investigative steps through affidavits. Section 9 does not create an adversarial hearing process. It provides for an administrative inquiry. This Court finds no denial of procedural fairness. [34] This Court accepts that a restructuring exercise took place following the acquisition by YTL Cement Berhad and that the affected employees were re-designated as "Assistant Executives." An employer is entitled to reorganize its structure and job titles across its group of companies. However, the mere fact of restructuring or a change in designation does not automatically alter the legal capacity in which an employee is employed. [35] The decisive factor remains the employees' actual job functions. If, based on interviews and inquiries, the DGIR found that the employees continued to perform materially similar duties as before the re-designation, such a finding falls within his evaluative discretion. A change in title, without a substantive change in job functions, is not conclusive of managerial or executive capacity. [36] Judicial review is concerned not with the correctness of the decision on merits but with the legality of the decision-making process. This Court does not sit as an appellate tribunal to substitute its own assessment for that of the DGIR merely because another conclusion may also have been possible. [37] Having carefully examined the totality of evidence, this Court is satisfied that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety sufficient to warrant judicial intervention. E) CONCLUSION [38] For the reasons stated above, this Court finds that the DGIR acted within jurisdiction, complied with the statutory framework under sections 9(1A), 9(1B) and 9(1D) IRA 1967, and exercised his investigative discretion lawfully and rationally. [39] Accordingly, Enclosure 11 is dismissed. Costs of RM3,000.00 are awarded to each Respondent respectively, subject to allocatur. High Court of Malaya Ipoh Parties: For the Applicant: Sujatha a/p Selliah@Chelliah; Tetuan Dharmen Sivalingam & Partners For the First Respondent: Norazlinawati binti Arshad; Peguam Kanan Persekutuan Negeri Perak For the Second Respondent: Vijaya Kumar Raj a/l K. Durai Raj and Shanthy a/p A Rajadurai; Tetuan A.Rajadurai P.Kuppusamy & Co.