As per case facts, appellants, employees of CONFED, were retrenched due to financial losses from non-viable retail outlets. They received compensation under Section 25-F, but the employer stated Section 25-N ... was inapplicable as the establishment wasn't an "Industrial Establishment." Questioning this, employees appealed, arguing Section 25-N applied and they were entitled to Rule 35(b) benefits, claiming deemed confirmation as permanent employees after their probation period. The central legal question was whether these employees were deemed confirmed and thus eligible for additional benefits under Rule 35(b), and the applicability of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act. Finally, the Supreme Court affirmed that Section 25-N did not apply since CONFED was not an "Industrial Establishment" as defined. However, the Court ruled that the appellants were deemed confirmed as permanent employees because they continued employment beyond the maximum probation period without an express order, making them eligible for benefits under Rule 35(b). The higher compensation between Section 25-F and Rule 35(b) must be paid, with prior payments adjusted accordingly.