The parties to the matter before this Court are, Edaran Otomobil Nasional Berhad ("the Company") and Safri Jaukarani Tiguat ("the Claimant").

The issue before this Court is the dismissal of the Claimant on 1 May 1992.

The Claimant was employed by the Company as a sales manager on 16 January 1992.

The Claimant was dismissed by a letter dated 29 April 1992 effective 1 May 1992.

The Claimant's last drawn basic salary at the material time was RM2,200.00 per month.

The Claimant denies that he is guilty of any misconduct.

The Claimant contends that his dismissal is without any just cause or excuse and/or in breach of the principles of natural justice and/or an unfair labour practice and/or unlawful.

The Claimant prays that he be reinstated in his former job as a sales manager without any loss of wages, allowance, services, seniority, privileges or benefits of any kind and or any other or alternate relief as this Court deems fit and proper.

At the commencement of hearing of the case on 18 May 1994 the Company has admitted liability in that the dismissal of the Claimant by the Company was wrongful.

Hence, the only issue that remains to be determined is the question of remedy claimed by the Claimant.

Although the parties have attempted to resolve the dispute amicably they were unable to agree on quantum. Both parties, however, did not call in aid any oral evidence in support of their respective contentions on the appropriate remedy. They have prepared written submissions on the issue.

The issue for adjudication is whether or not the Claimant, a probationer, should be reinstated to his previous position and the quantum to be awarded to the Claimant, in the event the Court does not order reinstatement, for his loss of employment.

Generally when a dismissal is held to be unfair or unjustified the Industrial Court will normally order reinstatement, unless the reinstatement is not possible or advisable. It is the discretion of the Court to decide whether to order reinstatement or only compensation in lieu thereof. As no oral evidence was adduced by both parties this Court is entitled to take a look at their respective pleadings to discover what was the origin or basis of the dispute. In the statement in reply the Company made serious allegations of Claimant's insubordination to the sales director, senior manager of human resources and sales operations manager. Besides this he was unable to communicate with his subordinates. I am mindful the Company has admitted liability and the alleged misconduct was looked upon for the purpose of arriving at a proper quantum or remedy. In the event I am of the view it will not be to the best interest of both parties if the Claimant is reinstated. I therefore hold that it is not proper or expedient to grant the normal relief of reinstatement. There is no necessity to discuss further the legal right of a probationer to be reinstated.

En. S. Muhendaran has ably propounded the principles on the status of a probationer, supported by a great number of cases in the Industrial Court. The learned Counsel has rightly submitted that :

The general law is that a probationer has no substantive right to his 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. His character, suitability and capacity as an employee is to be tested during the probationary period and his employment comes to an end if, during or at the end of the probationary period, he is found to be unsuitable and his employer terminates his probation according to the contract.

However, a probationer so terminated can question the decision through s. 20 of the Industrial Relation Act 1967 . Should the matter be referred to the Industrial Court for a decision, the Court will want to be satisfied that the termination was a bonafide exercise of the power conferred by the contract. If the Court is convinced that there is unfair labour practice then the Court will interfere with the termination and accord