essential for adjudication of the controversy raised are : That the petitioner(s) was initially appointed as Master Craftsman vide order dated 5th May, 1979 till 23rd May, 1979 with the terms and conditions stipulated therein and was posted at CTC, Ladnun vide order dated 21st May, 1979. It is further the case of the petitioner (s) that an industrial dispute was raised alleging unfair labour practice and for not regularizing the services on the part of the nonpetitioners. However, the claim was declined on the ground that the employees claiming benefit through 'Sangh' do not fall within the definition of 'workmen' as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947', for short). It is further stated that the award was challenged by the 'Sangh', representing the petitioner and others, before the High Court whereupon the notices of the writ application were issued with an interim order but later on, on account of vacation of the interim order, the services were terminated. However, there is no material available on record, in support of the facts detailed out with reference to the proceedings before the learned Tribunal and thereafter the services of the petitioner(s) were terminated vide order dated 21st July, 1997; allegedly since the petitioner(s) initiated proceedings before the learned Tribunal. The impugned order dated 21st July, 1997 has been assailed on the ground of violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 as well as for noncompliance of Rule 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes Rules. The petitioner(s) has also based the challenge for violation of the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The
