- (1.) The crux of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Hem Raj son of Sham Sunder, workman-Respondent No. 2 (for brevity "workman") was stated to have been appointed as a messenger, by the management of the Petitioner-Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar (for short "management"), by virtue of appointment order dated 7.1.1986. Since then, he was working honestly and to the best of his ability till 1.4.1988. On 2.4.1988, the workman was not allowed to work in the campus school of the management, without any reason. His services were dispensed with by the management, without assigning any reason or affording any opportunity of being heard and without payment of any retrenchment compensation to him under the provisions of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act").
(2.) The workman claimed that as the management has violated the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act, therefore, he issued a demand notice dated 19.4.1988 (Annexure P3) to it (management). It replied to the demand notice, by way of reply (Annexure P4), depicting therein that the appointment of workman was contractual upto 31.3.1988.
(3.) Finding no alternative, the workman raised an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Act, which was referred to the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court for adjudication by the appropriate Government. The workman submitted his claim before the Labour Court and prayed for his reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and all other benefits.;