IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 11448 of 2011-E. Decided on: 23rd December, 2011. Federal Mogul Bearings India Ltd. Plot No.5, Sector-2, Parwanoo, Distt. Solan, H.P. through Shri Sanjeev Nanda son of Shri Ashok Nanda, Manager, HR and IR Federal Mogul Bearings India Ltd., R/O 404/4, Royal Estate, Zirakpur, Distt. Mohali (Pb). Petitioner. Versus 1. State of H.P. through Secretary (Labour & Employment) Govt. of H.P. Shimla-2. 2. Labour Commissioner, H.P. Himrus Building, Circular Road, Shimla-2. 3. Gabriel Employees Union, INTUC, Parwanoo, Distt. Solan, through its President. 4. Madan Lal, Contractor son of late Shri Panjika Ram, R/O HIG-15, Housing Board Colony, Kalka, Distt. Panchkula (Hry). 5. Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Shimla. Respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG, for respondents No.1 and 2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed challenging Annexure P-9. As per Annexure P-6, the Government referred the following disputes for adjudication before the Labour Court: 2 “Whether the financial demands raised by the President/General Secretary, Gabriel Employees Union, INTUC, Parwanoo, Distt. Solan, H.P. vide demand notice dated 7.11.2006 (copy enclosed) before the management of M/s Gabriel India Ltd. Plot No.5, Sector-2, Parwanoo, Distt. Solan, H.P. and now M/s Federal Mogul Bearings India Ltd. Sector-2, Parwanoo and Sh. Madan Lal Contractor of M/s Federal Mogul Bearings India Ltd. Sector-2, Parwanoo, Distt. Solan are legal, reasonable and justified? If yes, what financial benefits the canteen workmen are entitled to as per said demand notice. If not, what are its legal effects?” 2. According to the petitioner, he is unnecessary party since the employer contractor is already there on the party array. The Labour Commissioner rejected the request for amendment of the Reference stating also that the petitioner management is the principal employer and hence is a necessary party. That question is yet to be decided. While adjudicating the Reference already made, it will be open to the petitioner to take all available contentions before the Labour Court and it is for the Labour Court to enter a finding as to whether the petitioner is principal employer or not. Therefore, we vacate the findings entered into by the Labour Commissioner in Annexure P-9 and dispose of the writ petition declining to otherwise interfere with Annexure P-9, but reserving liberty to the petitioner to take all available contentions before the Labour Court. 3 3. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 23rd December, 2011. (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tr) Judge.