THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 26141 of 2008 Oral order: By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to respondent No.3, namely the Central Industrial Tribunal, to permit the petitioner to implead himself as one of the petitioners in I.D. No. 9 of 2008 [Old No. ITID (C) 13 of 1999] pending on its file. The petitioner was a casual labour in Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board, which later became Visakhapatnam Port Trust. The petitioner along with others filed ITID No. (C) 13 of 1999 on the file of respondent No.3, seeking the relief of regularization of their services. Respondent No.3, after adjudication of the matter, vide award dated 16.04.2001, refused to grant the relief of regularization, but ordered payment of salaries on par with regular employees. Questioning the said award, both the management and the workers union filed writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 14413 and 16022 of 2001 respectively. While the said writ petitions were pending before this Court, the management vide order dated 31.08.2002 removed the petitioner from service. Questioning the said removal order, the petitioner filed writ petition in W.P. No. 23233 of 2002, and the same by order dated 14.06.2007, was allowed and the order of removal was set aside. In pursuance of the said order, the management vide proceedings dated 21.11.2007 reinstated the petitioner into service. While so, the writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 14413 and 16022 of 2001, filed by the management and workers union, were allowed by this Court vide order dated 01.08.2007, the award passed by respondent No.3 was set aside and the matter was remitted to respondent No.3 for hearing and disposing of the matter afresh. Thereafter, the petitioner states that as the workers union withdrew itself from the proceedings, all the casual workers got themselves impleaded in the proceedings before respondent No.3. Now it is the case of the petitioner that since by the time, the matter was remanded to respondent No.3, he was not reinstated into service, he was not shown as a party in the proceedings before respondent No.3, and now that he has been reinstated into service, and he having been a party to the original proceedings before respondent No.3 contends that he should be permitted to get himself impleaded as a party in I.D. No. 9 of 2008. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 expressed no objection to the petitioner being impleaded as party in the proceedings before respondent No.3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and having regard to the no objection expressed by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, to the relief sought by the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to allow the writ petition with the following directions: Respondent No.3 shall permit the petitioner to get himself impleaded as a party in the proceedings in I.D. No. 9/2008 [Old No.ITID (C) 13 of 1999], pending on its file. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 1st December, 2008. KSR