The case put forward on behalf of the respondents before the Industrial Tribunal was that respondent No. 3' was a permanent employee of the appellant and, when he joined the service of Sindhu Hotchief in the year 1953, he only went there on deputation or transfer, so that he continued to hold a lien on his permanent post in the appellant Corporation. Two facts, no doubt, support this plea. One is that Sindhu Hotchief was only a Subsi- a diary Company of the appellant, and the other is that, irr its order dated 24th September, 1953, the appellant merely stated that, with effect from the 18th September, 1953, the services of respondent No. 3 were placed at the disposal of Sindhu Hotchief. No specific order was passed terminating his services in the ap· pellant Corporation. Though this circumstance would raise a pre- ]) sumption that responc!ent No. 3 did not cease to be an employee of the appellant when this order was issued on 24th September, 1953, this presumption is rebutted by two circumstances. The first is that respondent No. 3 was ;tppointed in Sindhu Hotchief under the order dated 5th September, 1953, which laid down that in that Comp<1ny he would be on a probation for a period of three months E' in the first instance. The probationary period may have to be further extended by any period upto three months. The confirmation of his appointment would be considered at the end of his probationary period and would depend on the efficiency and 'utility of his services to the Company. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 continued to serve in that Company until 20th February, 1958. i.e. for a, period of about 4! years. Clearly, he must have been con- F' firmed in his appointment in that company. Once he was confirmed in Sindhu Hotchief, he could obviously not continue to be an employee of the appellant-corporation simultaneously. The High Court did not attach any value to this order of appointment dated 5th September, 1953, issued by Sindhu Hotchief, on the ground that no evidence was tendered before the Tribunal to show G that this order was actually served on respondent No. 3. In proceeding on this basis, the High Court clearly fell into an error, because, in this case, when the adjudication of the industrial dispute was taken up by the Tribunal, all the parties contented themselves with filing documentary evidence a.nd no oral evidence was given by any party. At no stage was it challenged that the documents filed could not be' taken into account until proved H: formally in the manner required to be proved in a regular civil proceeding in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. This order of Sindhu Hotchief da.ted 5th September, 1953, was addressed to respondent No. 3 himself and, when there
