[1980] 1 MELR Chong Kim Eng @ Yap Kim Eng v.

Soclim Kemajuan Sdn Bhd 175

CHONG KIM ENG @ YAP KIM ENG

v.
SOCLIM KEMAJUAN SDN BHD

Industrial Court, Kuala Lumpur

Tam Kam Weng
Award No. 82 Of 1980 [Case No: 122 Of 1980]
21 August 1980

AWARD
Reference: This is a reference made under Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1967 over the dismissal Chong Kim Eng (hereinafter called "the Claimant")
by Soclim Kemajuan Sdn. Bhd. (hereinafter called "the Company").
Claimant was employed as a secretary by the Company on 3.4.1980 and in the
letter of appointment, she was to be on probation for a period of three months. One
of the terms of the employment is that during the probationary period, her
employment can be terminated with a twenty-four hour notice if the Company
finds her work unsatisfactory. Claimant commenced work on 3rd April, 1980 and
her services were terminated on 7th May, 1980 with twenty-four hours' notice. She
now claims reinstatement without loss of wages and other conditions of
employment or compensation in lieu thereof.
The Company does not deny that it terminated the Claimant's employment with
twenty-four hours' notice. It did so because it found the Claimant's work was
unsatisfactory. It contends that it acted in accordance with the letter of
appointment.
The issue before me for determination is whether or not the Claimant's
employment on probation was justly terminated.
A person on probation has no substantive right to hold the post. He holds no lien
on the post. He is on trial to prove his fitness for the post for which he offers his
services. The purpose of probation is to test the character, suitability and capacity
of the employees. the "probationer" is taken on trial and his employment on
probation, as held in the case of P.L. Dhingra vs. Union of India (AIR [1958] S.C.
36), comes to an end under the ordinary law of master and servant if during or at
the end of the probation the employee so taken on trial is found unsuitable and the
employer terminates the probation by notice or otherwise as provided in the terms
of the appointment.
In the instant case, the Company had found the Claimant's work to be
unsatisfactory during the probationary period, as her typing work had to be
repeatedly performed. Several verbal warnings were given to the Claimant to
 176 Chong Kim Eng @ Yap Kim Eng v. Soclim Kemajuan Sdn Bhd [1980] 1 MELR

improve her work but of no avail. It, therefore, terminated her employment on
probation in accordance with the letter of appointment by giving the Claimant the
required notice. It is to be remembered that, in cases of this nature, an employer is
in a better position to judge and assess the character, suitability and capacity of his
employees and one can hardly dispute his findings.
For the reasons given above, I hold that the Claimant's employment on probation
has been justly terminated. The Claimant's claim for reinstatement or
compensation in lieu thereof is dismissed.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)