Judicial review in employment dismissal cases requires adherence to principles of fairness and just cause, irrespective of the probationary status of an employee.

[1] The appellant appeals against the decision of the High Court which quashed the decision of the Industrial Court. The decision of the Industrial Court was in favour of the appellant.

[2] The facts of the case are quite straightforward. The law is also well settled. However, the learned High Court Judge chose to interfere in the decision of the Industrial Court on a matter related to findings of fact. After hearing the appellant and the respondent, we took the view that the appeal must be allowed and the decision of the High Court must be set aside in limine.

Brief Facts

[3] The appellant was employed as a manager by the respondent at a salary of RM10,000.00 per month. The probation was for a period of three months. There was no misconduct on the part of the appellant in his work assignment though there was evidence to suggest that some of the staff were not happy with the way he managed them. The respondent terminated the employment during the probation period.

[4] The Industrial Court found that the appellant was dismissed without just cause and excuse and awarded a sum of RM90,000.00. The Industrial Court's finding was summarised by the learned High Court Judge as follows:

"a. the 1st respondent was contractually terminated during the duration of his probation;

b. there was no effective prior oral or written warnings given to the 1st respondent that he was in real danger of being terminated prior to the actual event, and nor (sic) was any convincing reason whatsoever advanced for his dismissal;

c. there was no allegation of non-performance or poor performance;

d. the allegations of misconduct put forward at the trial in the Industrial Court were proved unsubstantiated;

e. there was not an iota of cogent or convincing evidence that could have rendered the Applicant's action justifiable in the eyes of equity and good conscience;

f. the dismissal of the 1st respondent by the applicant was arbitrary and capricious and actuated by bad labour practice; and

g. the 1st respondent was dismissed without just cause and excuse."