So here is a peculiar case I came across in the Industrial Court.
A company hired a developer, decided he could not do the work, and fired him after just two days. The employee challenged the dismissal. By the time the court gave its decision in March 2026, more than two years had passed since the job ended.
The company won. The court accepted that the developer could not even begin the work he had claimed he could do, and upheld the dismissal on those particular facts.
But consider this: the employment lasted two days, while the dispute was still being dealt with years later. The company had lawyers representing it, and its director gave evidence. The employee represented himself.
From a business point of view, I can understand wanting to move quickly when someone cannot do the job you hired them for. You have work waiting and customers to serve. In this case, the company’s director said that keeping up its supply to customers was precisely the concern.
Yet winning the case still meant going through the process of defending the decision. As a boss, that is the part I would want you to think about before treating this result as a reason to dismiss a new hire quickly.
Let me take you through what happened, because the reason the company won matters just as much as how long it took.
What happened in those two days?
The employee joined the company as a back-end developer on 23 October 2023. His contract provided for three months of probation. According to the company, he had said during his interview that he could develop a website, and it hired him on that basis.
The company said it gave him source code, the written instructions used to build software, and asked him to develop a business website. Its director described an online shopping website like Shopee. But according to the company, the developer could not even start the basic work, and the same problem remained on the second day.
Now, the employee gave a different account. He said he had only been given the code to study and had never been asked to complete a task. He also said the work involved crypto, which the company denied.
The court had to decide which account the evidence supported.
The employee said he was told to leave on his second day and return the company’s belongings. The termination letter gave failure to meet the probationary requirements as the reason.
Why did the court believe the company?
When the employee was questioned in court, he admitted that he had no evidence to support his account about crypto. He also had no evidence supporting the website work he had described in his resume.
That matters because the company said his claimed ability to build a website was the reason it hired him. The court was looking at what he had said he could do, alongside what happened when he was given the work.
After considering the evidence, the court accepted the company’s account. It found that the developer had misrepresented his expertise and could not even begin the task. It rejected his explanation that he had only been asked to study the code.
There is a distinction here worth keeping. The absence of evidence for his resume claims does not, by itself, prove that he had never built a website. The court reached its finding after considering that absence together with the evidence about his work at this company.
The employee also argued that he had already been confirmed in the job. But he produced no evidence of confirmation and admitted that he had not received a confirmation letter. The court treated him as a probationer.
But is two days really enough to assess someone?
To be fair, two days is a very short time to settle into a new job. If you were the employee, you might well ask how anyone could assess you that quickly.
The court nevertheless considered it sufficient in this case. It relied on the developer’s claimed expertise, his inability to begin the task and the company’s fast-moving industry. The court was not saying that a new employee should have completed an entire website in two days. Its concern was that he could not even begin the work he had said he could do.
It found that the company had assessed him reasonably and had not acted arbitrarily or in bad faith. It upheld the dismissal and dismissed his claim.
So if you are reading this as an employer, please take care with what you take away from this case. The result does not give every new hire two days to prove themselves. Your employees may be doing different work, with different instructions and different support. You would need to look at what actually happened in your case.
In Malaysia, ending a probationer’s employment still requires just cause or excuse. The employer must be able to show a genuine assessment of suitability and that the employee’s shortcomings were made known to them. A formal written warning or a full performance improvement plan is not automatically required for every probationer, but the employer still needs to justify the decision.
How did two days of work turn into years of proceedings?
There is a step before court that is worth understanding. In the section 20 dismissal process, the Department of Industrial Relations Malaysia (JPPM) arranges conciliation, or rundingan damai, to help the employer and employee reach a settlement. If the Director General is satisfied that there is no likelihood of settlement, the matter is referred to the Industrial Court.
Let’s take a look at the dates. The employment ended in October 2023. The case was referred to the Industrial Court in March 2024, and the award lists hearing dates on 5 December 2024 and 9 January 2026. The decision came on 16 March 2026.
By then, more than two years had passed since the developer was fired. The working relationship had barely begun before it ended, yet the company was still dealing with the dismissal years later.
Alongside the hearings, the award lists several mentions, which are dates for managing the case.
What it does show is that ending the employment did not end the company’s involvement with the employee. Its director later had to explain the decision in evidence, and the court had to examine whether the dismissal was justified.
What might defending that decision take out of you?
To be fair, I can understand why you might hesitate to pay to settle a claim when someone worked for only two days and you believe you had good reason to dismiss them. From your point of view, you may feel as if you are being asked to pay for a decision you believe was justified. That can be difficult to accept, even before we start looking at the practical cost of defending it.
But consider the legal bill as well. The award records lawyers representing the company, while the employee represented himself. I wonder what the company spent seeing the case through. The court dismissed the claim without making an order for the employee to reimburse the company’s legal fees.
Then think about the time and attention a case may need. If you were the boss, you might have to go back through what happened, work with your lawyer and prepare to give evidence, while still keeping the business running. Winning the case would not give you that time back.
There may be a personal cost too. Imagine trying to concentrate on work while worrying about an upcoming hearing or waiting for a decision. If other people in your team are involved, you might also wonder how the case is affecting their work and morale.
The employee may face pressures of their own too. These are things I would want you to consider before rushing into a decision to dismiss someone.
And I can understand why an employer might still choose to defend it. If you believe the decision was justified and have the evidence to support it, you may feel strongly about seeing the matter through.
What would I take from this as an employer?
I would start with what you are hiring the person to bring. Are you hiring someone for expertise you do not have? Or someone you expect to train in work you already know how to do? Those are different starting points for what you expect them to handle on their own.
There can be some of both. Even an experienced hire may need guidance on how your business works. Make clear what you expect them to do independently and what you will teach them, so neither of you has to guess.
If a particular skill is the reason you are hiring someone, how will you check that they can actually do it? Depending on the role, a relevant work sample or a discussion of previous projects may help you understand what sits behind the resume.
That is a question I would carry into the next hiring interview.
Then, if something goes wrong in the first few days, I would want to understand what the person was asked to do and why they could not do it. Make the task clear, hear their explanation and keep a record. Those steps give you a better basis for deciding what the problem is, although they cannot guarantee that a dispute will never follow.
Before deciding to let someone go, think beyond the moment when you tell them to leave. If they challenge the decision, what might you have to put into defending it?
For me, this case brings the attention back to the decisions made before a dispute begins. What are you hiring someone to bring, what do you expect them to handle independently, and what will you teach them?
If the relationship is not working, take the time to understand why before deciding how to end it. You may have good reasons to defend that decision later. The thinking should start before you make it.
Source
Based on the published award in Lim Zi Chao v TW World Technology (M) Sdn Bhd, Industrial Court Award No. 479 of 2026 (16 March 2026).
This article is for information and education only and does not constitute legal advice. Employment law changes, and how it applies depends entirely on your specific facts. Consult a licensed Malaysian advocate and solicitor before taking disciplinary or termination action.