the Industrial Court failed to consider that the Respondent failed to prove the Applicant’s poor work performance. Status of the applicant [19] The Applicant averred that he has to be presumed as a confirmed employee despite the non-confirmation of employment by the Respondent. The Applicant referred to the High Court decision in Paari Perumal v. Abdul Majid Hj Nazar din & Ors [2000] 4 CLJ 127 where it was decided that if an employee is not confirmed or his services are not S/N uua6TUhh/km2Tsl/wWNqxA terminated at the end of his probationary period, he should be deemed to be a confirmed employee. [20] Nevertheless, the above authority is flagrantly perverse and contrary to the Federal Court decision in KC Mathews v. Kumpulan Guthrie Sdn. Bhd. [1981] CLJ 40B (Rep) 62, wherein Raja Azlan Shah CJM had agreed with Das Gupta J in Express Newspapers Ltd v. Labour Court & Anor [1964] AIR SC 806 which held that if no action is taken by the employer either by way of confirmation or by way of termination, the employee continues to be in service as a probationer. [21] It is also a cardinal principle that a probationer holds no lien to his employment. The concept of probation in a service contract is the test of the character and capabilities of the person on the employer's side as well as the test of the conditions of service on the employee’s part. The appointment of a person on probation is therefore tentative and dependent on the employer's satisfaction as to his suitability. [22] In the present case, the Applicant clearly rejected the LC offered by the Respondent. In the absence of any letter from the Respondent or any other cogent evidence recognising the Applicant as a confirmed employee, I agree with the industrial court that the Applicant was still a probationer at the time of his dismissal despite the letter of appointment stated that he would be on a probation for 3 months. S/N uua6TUhh/km2Tsl/wWNqxA Merit of dismissal [23] On the ground for dismissal, the Respondent in its statement of reply in the industrial court stated that the Applicant’s dismissal was due to his poor work performance. The Respondent averred that, before the dismissal, it had sent a series of emails to the Applicant informing the latter on his under-achieved performance and asking him to improve. [24] Nevertheless, the Applicant averred that the Respondent failed to prove his poor work performance. Instead, the Applicant submitted that the alleged lack of performance was mainly contributed by the Respondent’s lack of management and shortcomings. [25] Based on the arguments by both parties, the question before the court is whether the ground of the Applicant’s dismissal is justified or otherwise. [26] It is my view that one of the best methods to measure whether a probationer is justified for dismissal is by way of thorough assessment of his performance during the entire probation. At this juncture, I find instructive the case of Robert John Reeves v. Menteri Sumber Manusia, Malaysia & Anor [2000] 1 CLJ 180, where it is was stated by Faiza Thamby Chik J on the right of employer to terminate a probationer upon evaluation of his service as follows: Therefore in the instant case at the end of the applicant's probationary period, it was open to the 2nd respondent to either continue or discontinue the services of the applicant. The applicant, by virtue of being a probationer, had no say in the matter and the 2nd respondent, as the employer, was fully entitled to S/N uua6TUhh/km2Tsl/wWNqxA terminate his services upon their evaluation that he did not perform his job functions satisfactorily. If it were otherwise, there would be no distinction between probationary employment and permanent employment. [27] In Bennet Subash Peter v. Bon Ton Sdn Bhd (Bon Ton Resort Langkawi) [2019] 4 CLJ 150; [2019] 1 MLJ 326, the Court of Appeal referred to the book entitled the Industrial disputes Law in Malaysia, 2nd edn at p. 111 where its author C.P. Mills observes – The Industrial Court has held that employment of a person on probation does not give the employer a right to terminate the contract at his absolute discretion. Even at common law the employer's right to determine the contract during the probationary period depended on the employer being reasonably satisfied as to the unsuitability of the employee. That is to say, the employer's decision should be made bona fide, not arbitrarily or capriciously. [28] Looking at the emails sent by the Respondent to the Applicant, it clearly shows that the latter’s performance was closely monitored and supervised by Ms. Calista Sheet and Ms. Lynn. When the Respondent was not satisfied with the Applicant’s works by enumerating his poor performance including below-achieved sale targets as promised and some outstanding bills which were not cleared even after 6 months, I find that the Respondent had properly evaluated the Applicant works before deciding to dismiss him. Thus, there is no doubt that the decision to dismiss the Applicant was justified and made bone fide after full assessment on his works. [29] On the issue raised by the Applicant that he was not reminded or issued with any warning of his poor performance, I find that the series of emails and the conduct of the Respondent reducing the Applicant’s salary S/N uua6TUhh/km2Tsl/wWNqxA are sufficient to serve as warnings and reminders to the Applicant of his unsatisfactory works. At the same time, I find that the Applicant was given a reasonable time by the Respondent to improve his work performance. [30] Further, I find that the periodical reports and the monthly targets of the Applicant’s sales which were discussed in detail by the Respondent with the former can be taken as a notification of his overall performance. In Hartalega Sdn Bhd v. Shamsul Hisham Mohd Aini [2004] 3 CLJ 257, Wan Arfah J held that –