By a letter of appointment dated 20 Mei 1991 (exhibit CO1) the Claimant was employed by the Company as an accountant. Vide Clause 1 of the letter of appointment, the Claimant was put on a probationary period of six months during which period either party may terminate the employment by giving the other party two weeks notice or salary in lieu of notice.

On 15 August 1991 while she was still undergoing her probationary period, the Claimant's employment with the Company came to an end. The Claimant contended that she had been dismissed without just cause or excuse. The Company contends that there had been a mutual termination of the Claimant's contract of employment; the question of whether there had been just cause or excuse therefore did not arise.

The only issue before the Court is therefore whether the Claimant's contract of employment had been brought to an end pursuant to dismissal taken at the initiative of the Company or to a mutual termination upon the consensus of both the Company and the Claimant. If the Court finds that there had been a dismissal, the Court must find and this is conceded by Counsel for the Company, that the Company had no just cause or excuse for dismissing the Claimant as no grounds had been forwarded to justify the same. On the other hand, if the Court finds that there was a mutual termination of the contract, the Claimant would have failed to establish the jurisdictional fact that she had been dismissed and her reference to this Court must be dismissed forthwith.

COW1, the executive director of the Company stated in her evidence that the Company had no reason to unilaterally terminate the Claimant's services as an accountant. On 14 August 1991, i.e. the day before the alleged dismissal, the Claimant who appeared to have been unhappy had told her that she did not wish to come back to work the following day. Prior to that the Claimant had on more than one occasion also told her that she had been unhappy working at the Company. It also appeared to her that the Claimant could not get along with the staff. COW1 said that she had observed that the Claimant was a very emotional person and that sometimes she would scream at the staff.

COW1 further stated that upon being told that the Claimant might not return to work she had then gone to see COW2, the managing director to discuss the matter after which the latter had then called the Claimant to his room. Subsequent to that she had been informed by COW2 that they, i.e. the Claimant and the Company, have decided to "call it quits". She had also been told by COW2 to instruct the personnel department to pay the Claimant two week's salary in lieu of notice. It appeared that the Claimant had requested the company to pay her something as she needed time to find a job.

COW2, the managing director of the Company stated in his evidence that upon being informed by COW1 that the Claimant would not be reporting for work the following day, he had called the Claimant in. They had discussed the matter. COW1 further said that he knew that it was bad for the Company to be without an account. However, as the Claimant was unhappy it was mutually agreed that "we will call it quits".

COW1 said that the Claimant had asked him to pay her something. He had felt that it would be a nice gesture to give her the "benefits under the normal terms" and told her that he will give her two week's salary to "ease her financial burden". He accordingly communicated with COW1 and the personnel department to arrange for the payment of the two week's salary.

COW3, the personnel manager of the Company stated in his evidence that he had been asked by COW2 to arrange for the payment of the emoluments due to the Claimant who had wanted to leave the Company. There was a problem concerning the matter of paying the Claimant the "extra two week's salary". He was unsure how the said payment was to be recorded in the documentation. The Claimant also did not want any tax to be withheld from what was going to