Raja Azlan Shah CJ (Malaya):

At the end of the argument we dismissed the appeal from the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim for reinstatement in his employment, alternatively, for damages for wrongful termination of employment. We now give our reasons.

The facts in this case were not greatly in dispute. By letter dated 13 April 1970, the appellant was appointed a second clerk on an estate belonging to the respondent. The letter of his appointment expressly provided that the appointment was for a probationary period of six months after which period consideration would be given to confirmation, the deciding factor being whether the employer was or was not satisfied with his work. The employment commenced on 16 April and the six months' period ended on 15 October 1970. An assessment was made of the appellant's work at about this time. In all aspects of his work his rating was poor, the only ray of sunshine being his knowledge of work which was rated fair. As for his personal qualities he was either fair, or poor and he was poor in his appearance. It was indicated in that report which was dated 20 October 1970, that his shortcomings had been told to him but he had made absolut