This is an appeal against the judgment of the Industrial Relations Court (IRC). The Appellant was employed as a Relationship Manager by the Respondent. The Appellant was initially placed on probation for six months. However, the probation was extended for a period of three months following the review of his performance by the Respondent’s management. Subsequently, the Appellant’s employment was terminated after the Respondent invoked the termination clause and no reasons were given for the termination. The Appellant was, however paid his dues in full. The lower court dismissed the appellants claim that his employment was unlawfully terminated before the lapse of his extended period. The IRC held that the Respondent was not in breach of the Employment Act or the rules of natural justice, hence this appeal.
Held
1. Probation period is a work test period for the benefit of both parties; the employer to assess whether the employee is fit for the job and the employee to decide whether to take the job permanently.
2. Section 26A of the Employment Act does not apply to written contracts
3. Even though the Industrial Relations Court does not follow strict rules of evidence, it is the duty of the court to protect individuals who are named in the course of litigation but cannot defend themselves and whose reputation may seriously be damaged once they are mentioned in the particular case.
4. It is not the intention of Section 85 of the Industrial and Labour Relations Act to allow any trash into evidence. Substantial justice means justice not only for the Complainant and Respondent but also for any person intended in the proceedings.
5. The Appellate Court will only reverse finding of facts made by a trial Judge if it is satisfied that the findings of facts in question were either perverse or made in the absence of any relevant evidence or upon a misapprehension of the facts.
