SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 MarsdenLR 1650

INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
KOPERASI SERBAGUNA PEKERJA FELDA BHD. – Appellant
Versus
ZAINAL ARIFFIN BIN MOHD. NOOR – Respondent
Award No. 4O1 Of 1994 [Case No. 3/4-186/89 (24 May 1989)]



AWARD NO. 401 OF 1994 [17 SEPTEMBER 1994]

AWARD

This is a dispute between the Koperasi Serbaguna Pekerja Felda Bhd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) and Zainal Ariffin bin Mohd.Noor (hereinafter referred to as the Claimant) arising out of the dismissal of the latter by the former on 19 September 1988.

The only main issue in this case is whether or not the Claimant was dismissed with just cause and excuse.

It is an undisputed fact that the Claimant joined the Company as a manager on 2 November 1987 at the starting salary of RM1,750.00 per month. CO1 page 1 and 2 is the letter of offer which reads, inter alia:

Lembaga dengan sukacita menawarkan kepada saudara jawatan tersebut di atas dengan gaji permulaan sebanyak RM1,750.00 sebulan dengan syarat-syarat seperti berikut:-

(a)Saudara akan dikehendaki bekerja secara percubaan selama 1 tahun.Pengesahan jawatan saudara adalah tertakluk kepada perkhidmatan saudara yang memuaskan, setelah menamatkan tempoh percubaan yang ditetapkan.Sekiranya saudara tidak disahkan dalam jawatan tersebut selepas tamat tempoh percubaan yang dinyatakan kerana sebab-sebab perkhidmatan saudara yang tidak memuaskan, Lembaga adalah berhak menamatkan perkhidmatan saudara.

According to the reply from the Claimant to the offer of the Company dated 31 October 1987 (CO1 page 3) the Claimant accepted the offer and stated that he would commence work on 2 November 1987.In fact Claimant started work for the Company on 2 November 1987.

From the contract of employment it is clear that Claimant was on one year's probation from 2 November1987.

By a letter dated 19 September 1988 (CO1 page 4) the Company wrote to Claimant inter alia thus:

En. Zainal Ariffin bin Haji Mohd.Noor, 9065, Taman Jaya, Padang Temu, 75050 Melaka

Tuan,

Per: Menamatkan Perkhidmatan Sebagai Pengurus KOGUNA

Sebagaimana maklum, tuan telah mula bertugas di Koperasi ini mulai daripada 2 November 1987 dengan tempoh percubaan selama 1 (satu) tahun.

Sejak mula bertugas hingga kini, iaitu dalam tempoh lebih kurang 10 1/2 bulan, prestasi kerja tuan didapati tiada memuaskan dan tidak seperti yang diharapkan.

Oleh itu, lembaga KOGUNA telah memutuskan untuk menamatkan perkhidmatan tuan dengan serta merta mulai daripada tarikh surat ini.Sejajar dengan syarat yang diberikan seperti surat perlantikan bertarikh 27 October 1987, bersama-sama ini disertakan cek MBB No. 429704 bernilai RM1,750.00 sebagai bayaran sebulan gaji.

Tuan juga dengan ini diarahkan untuk menyerahkan semua kunci, peralatan dan dokumendokumen KOGUNA yang ada di dalam simpanan tuan, kepada setiausaha.

Berkenaan gaji tuan bagi bulan September, 1988, ianya hanya akan dibayar selepas mendapat pelepasan dari Jabatan Hasil Dalam Negeri.

Di atas perkhidmatan yang telah tuan berikan semasa bertugas di Koperasi ini selama ini, bagi pihak lembaga KOGUNA, saya mengucapkan terima kasih.Saya juga mengucapkan selamat maju jaya kepada tuan untuk masa-masa hadapan.

It is therefore clear that Claimant was placed on one year's probation w.e.f. 2 November 1987 and he was dismissed on 19 September 1988 i.e. after 10 1/2 months because his performance as a manager was found to be unsatisfactory and not as expected.

As to the law on probationers C. P. Mills in his book "Industrial Disputes Law in Malaysia" says at page 111:

1

The Industrial Court has held that employment of a person on probation does not give the employer a right to terminate the contract at his absolute discretion.Even at common law the employer's right to determine the contract during probationary period depended on the employer being reasonably satisfied as to the suitablity of the employee.That is to say, the employer's decision should be made bona fide, not arbitrarily or capriciously.

Malhotra in his book "The Law of Industrial Dispute" (11th Edition at page 224) says:

It is well settled law that at the end of the probationary period, it is open to the employer to continue the employee in his service or not in his discretion, otherwise the distinction between pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top