Ismail, J.

The facts of this case to a very great extent are not in dispute and mostly they are borne out by documentary evidence in the form of correspondence, notices, agreements and receipts which have been field by consent of parties in this case as Exs. P1 to P29. Since these documents have been field by consent of parties, they have not been marked separately as plaintiff's documents or defendant's documents and they have been given a single serial number as Ex. P. series. Even in relation to the oral evidence, the only evidence is that of the plaintiff as P.W. 1 who has spoken to his case. The field of controversy in relation to facts is very very limited and I shall refer to the same later.

2. The plaintiff, who is a B.E. (Civil) was appointed as a road engineer in the service of the Standard Vacuum Oil Company the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant herein. There was a contract in this behalf dated October 27, 1947 marked as Ex. P1. The salary of the plaintiff was fixed as Rs. 300 per mensem and the appointment was to be effective from November 1, 1947. Ex. P1 says that the plaintiff would be on probation for a period of 12 months and if during that period h