Advocates:
A.K.SEN GUPTA, N.H.Hingorani, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN

The employee's services with the original employer were never terminated, as there was no formal order ending employment, no retrenchment compensation paid by the original employer at transfer, and the order merely placed services "at the disposal" of the subsidiary (a related entity), indicating deputation rather than termination, preserving the employee's lien and permanent status in the original company. (!) [1000132640002] The employee joined the subsidiary immediately after leave granted by the original employer, on higher pay but without explicit consent to end original employment, and served continuously in a group context without evidence of a new independent contract supplanting the old one. (!) [1000132640002] Confirmation in the subsidiary after probation does not automatically sever ties with the original employer absent clear mutual agreement to terminate, especially since the subsidiary appointment order was not formally proved as received or accepted as a full replacement, and strict evidence rules do not apply in Tribunal proceedings where parties relied on documents.[1000132640002] Upon retrenchment from the subsidiary (with compensation only from there), the employee promptly reported for duty to the original employer, asserting continued lien, which was refused without justification, entitling him to reinstatement and back wages as a permanent employee facing effective retrenchment without compliance. (!) (!) (!) The demand for reinstatement was explicitly raised on 21st February 1958, pursued via union representation, conciliation proceedings under the Act, and directly referenced by Government order, constituting a valid industrial dispute over non-reinstatement post-retrenchment from deputation, within Tribunal jurisdiction under relevant provisions; subsequent compensation demands were alternative reliefs, not abandonment. (!) (!) (!) [1000132640003] The Tribunal correctly directed reinstatement with back wages, as the High Court upheld, reflecting proper adjudication of the dispute's substance