1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 652 of 1998 EXCUTIVE ENGINEER PHED V/S LRS OF NAND LAL & ORS. Mr. B.L.BHATI, for the appellant / petitioner None present for the respondents. Date of Order : 4.12.2007 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,J. ORDER ----- By this appeal, the appellant seek to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.04.1998,whereby the appellant's writ petition was dismissed, as not maintainable. The facts of the case are, that the workman Nandlal was not given promotion on the post of Meter Reader, he set into motion the machinary under Industrial Disputes Act, and vide order dated 20.02.1992 the State Government made a reference to the labour Court, to decide the question, as to whether, non given promotion to the workman, on the post of Meter Reader is valid and proper. This litigation was between the appellant Nandlal and 2/4 Assistant Engineer, Public Health Department, Sub-division, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar. The labour Court passed the award dated 06.06.1994, holding that the workman is entitled to promotion on the post of Meter Reader w.e.f. 01.01.1981, with all consequential benefits and since he is working on the said post since 01.01.1971, he is entitled to the minimum pay-scale of the Meter Reader for this period also, on the principle of equal pay for equal work. This award was published on 23.02.1995. Against this award, writ petition was filed by the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Suratgarh, Now at Anupgarh and Assistant, Engineer Public Health Department, Sub- division, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar, impleading Nandlal as respondent. The writ petition was admitted on 24.05.1995, and interim stay order was also granted, staying the operation of the award, and then, after service of the respondent workman, vide order dated 26.03.1997, the interim stay order was confirmed also. From the record, we find that no reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the workman. Be that as it may. When the matter came-up for hearing, the learned Single Judge took-up himself, an objection to the effect, that Executive Engineer has no locus to challenge the award, in his capacity as Executive Engineer, and that he is employee of the State, and the State is the real employer, ultimately the award is to be satisfied by the 3/4 State, and in his absence being petitioner, the writ petition is required to be dismissed straight-way on this ground. The submissions made on behalf of the appellant about the writ petitioners being party before the labour Court, so as to give them necessary locus, was turned down, and the request made to implead as a party to State of Rajasthan as co-petitioners, was also turned down as belated, and on the short ground, the writ petition was dismissed. In our view, the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained, firstly for the reason, that the State was not a party before the learned labour Court, and then, in any case, even if the learned Judge was inclined to take-up the objection, this was not taken in the reply, as no reply was filed was filed, and even nobody appeared for the workman, even, in that event, the request made on behalf of the writ petitioners to be allowed to implead State of Rajasthan as co-petitioners, was genuine request, and was required to be accepted. As a result of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside, and the appellants are permitted to implead the State of Rajasthan as a party co- petitioners, and the matter be remanded back to the learned Single Judge, giving liberty to petitioners to implead the State of Rajasthan as party co-petitioners, and the 4/4 learned Single Judge is thereafter, directed to hear and decide the writ petition on merits. ( MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. preety