IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12697 of 1996 Between: M/s Maheshwari Engineering Enterprises, rep. By its proprietor, Sri Gopi Krishna Baheti, 7-1-61\4, d.k. Road, Ameerpet, hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Authority under Minimum Wages Act & Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Twin Cities, R.T.C.'X' Roads, Hyderabad. 2 The Asst. Labour Officer, Circle No. 26, R.T.C. 'X' roads, Hyderabad ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.G.RAVINDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 23-04-1996 in M.W.No.46 of 1994 on the file of respondent No.1. The petitioner is the employer. On the application filed by respondent No.2- the Assistant Labour Officer, Circle No.26, Hyderabad, respondent No.1-the authority under Minimum Wages Act and Deputy Commissioner of Labour adjudicated the issue relating to payment of minimum wages to five persons by name D.Sreenivas, Arshad, T.Krishna, Vinod Bhan and Nazeer. On the analysis of the material available before it, respondent No.1 directed that the petitioner should deposit an amount of Rs.14,410-50 ps towards the minimum wages payable to the said five workmen. The employer filed this writ petition assailing the said order. In the view I am proposing to take, it is not necessary for me to go into the merits of the submissions made by Sri B.G.Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner failed to implead the five workmen in whose favour and for whose benefit, the order impugned in this writ petition was passed by respondent No.1. If this order is set aside, undoubtedly, the interests of the said five workmen will be affected. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to justify the non-impleadment of the five workmen on the ground that they were not parties before respondent No.1, I am not impressed by this contention. Irrespective of the said five workmen not being parties before respondent No.1, still it is incumbent on the petitioner to implead them in this writ petition, because they are not only proper parties but also necessary parties, inasmuch as the result of this writ petition vitally affects their interests. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties, without going into the merits of the case. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 25th November,2008 vrn