Civil Revision No. 6292 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6292 of 2009 Date of Decision: 30.10.2009 Surinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Panipat and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri S.S. Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The present petition is directed against the order passed by the Labour Court on 6.5.2009, whereby an application filed by the petitioner to implead Venu Eye Institute, New Delhi, as respondent No. 3, in an industrial dispute, was dismissed. The learned Labour Court has found that the Appropriate Government in respect of the dispute of the said Venu Eye Institute, New Delhi, shall be Government of Union Territory, Delhi. The petitioner cannot be permitted to seek impleadment of said Institute as a respondent in an industrial dispute pending at Panipat. As per the Civil Revision No. 6292 of 2009 [2] petitioner, respondent No.2 is his employer. If respondent No.2 is the employer of the petitioner, the impleadment of Venu Eye Institute, which is said to be the registered owner of the bus of which the petitioner is said to be engaged as a driver, is immaterial. The petitioner cannot have multiple employers at one point of time. Either it is respondent No.2, who is employer of the petitioner or Venu Eye Institute (respondent No.3) in the present petition. The Appropriate Government in respect of each employer would be different. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 30-10-2009 ds