Shaik Daud Ismail JCA:

[1] The High Court allowed an application by the respondent for certiorari and quashed the award of the Industrial Court on the ground that that Court lacked jurisdiction.

[2] The appellant joined the services of the respondent on 2 May 1991 as an administrative assistant and was placed on three months' probation At the end of her probationary period on 31 July 1991, she was dismissed on the ground that she had "not met the standard requirements for confirmation." She contends that she was unfairly dismissed and her representation was eventually referred to the Industrial Court under s. 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ('the Act') by the Minister of Human Resources.

[3] After hearing evidence from both the appellant and the respondent, the Industrial Court concluded that her dismissal was without just cause or excuse, but instead of ordering reinstatement as prayed for, the Court awarded her compensation of nine months arrears of salary.

[4] In the High Court, the respondent contended that the appellant being a probationer was not a workman within the meaning of s 20(1) of the Act and that therefore the Industrial Court had no threshold jurisdiction to entertain her representation. This stand was never taken by the respondent in the Industrial Court itself. The High Court agreed with the respondent's contention and allowed the application for certiorari and quashed the award of the Industrial Court.

[5] The issue before the High Court and this Court is whether the appellant, a probationer, is a workman within the meaning of s 20(1) of the Act . Section 2 of the Act defines workman to be:

... any person, including an apprentice employed by an employer under a contract of employment to work for hire or reward and for the purposes of any proceedings in relation to a trade dispute includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with or as a consequence of that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute.

[6] Whether the Industrial Court has jurisdiction to hear a representation of a worker on probation came to be decided in V Subramaniam & Ors. v. Craigielea Estate, [1982] 1 MLJ 317. The facts of the case slightly differ from the present case but the issue is the same i.e. it concerns a representation made by a probationer. In that case the appellants were employed on probation by the respondent estate. At the end of their probationary period they were neither confirmed nor dismissed but they carried on in their services. They took part in a strike organised by the Union to which they belonged and in doing so they were absent from their work. The respondent estate informed them that as they had been absent from their work without lawful or reasonable excuse for more than two consecutive days, the estate had terminated their employment. The matter was referred eventually to the Industrial Court. The