IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 649 of 2007. Decided on: 08.01.2008. State of H.P. & Others. … … Petitioners. Versus Beli Ram. … … Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. M.A. Khan and Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Deputy Advocate Generals. For the Respondent: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: A challenge has been laid by the State to the award passed by the Labour Court, Shimla in reference No.107 of 2002 dated 26.5.2006. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the workman for convenience sake) raised a demand notice under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) demanding his reinstatement after his removal from the job with effect from 26.5.2000 as a part time water-carrier. The Block Primary Education Officer, Ram Ramshehar, District Solan filed a detailed reply to the demand notice on 6th December, 2000. A specific stand was taken in the reply filed to the demand notice Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - that the workman was not employed as a water-carrier in Government Primary School, Chillarh by the Education Department. It appears from the record that thereafter conciliation proceedings took place between the parties and consequently the report was furnished to the State Government by the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Solan. The State Government made the following reference to the Labour Court for adjudication:- “Whether Sh. Beli Ram S/O Sh. Gauna Ram served as Water Carrier in Govt. Primary School Chillarh, Distt. Solan during period 23.11.1995 to 26.5.2000 under the control of Block Primary Education Officer, Ramshehar, Distt. Solan, H.P.” “If yes, “Whether his termination w.e.f. 26.5.2000 by the Block Primary Education Officer, Ramshehar, on completion of more than 240 days in service is legal and justified? If not, what service benefits the above workman is entitled to?” The Labour Court had served notices upon the parties pursuant to which the Block Primary Education Officer, Ramshehar, Tehsil Nalagarh filed the reply. The Labour Court vide award date 26th May, 2006 directed the State to accommodate the workman as water-carrier in the nearby school within a period of two months. Mr. R.K. Bawa, the learned Advocate General had strenuously argued that the award dated 26.5.2006 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Mr. Rahul Mahajan had supported the award dated 26.5.2006. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The appointment to the post of water-carrier is made by the Gram Panchayat and not by the State Government. A specific stand has also been taken by the State in the reply filed to the demand notice that the workman was not engaged/employed by the State Government. The - 3 - Labour Court has over-looked this very important aspect while adjudicating upon the reference made to it. Mr. R.K. Bawa had strenuously argued that there is no master- servant relationship between the parties and the Labour Court could not direct the State to accommodate the workman as per the award dated 26.5.2006. He has also drawn the attention of the Court to the policy framed by the State Government regulating the conditions of service of the water-carrier. It is evident from the policy placed on record that the appointing authority of the water-carrier is the concerned Gram Panchayat. Admittedly, the Gram Panchayat Chillarh, Post Office Manlog Kalan, Tehsil Ramshehar has not been added as party through its Pradhan. No demand notice was ever issued to the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Chillarh, Post Office Manlog Kalan, Tehsil Ramshehar being the appointing authority. The workman has filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC during the course of hearing of this petition for impleading the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Chillarh, Smt. Kanta Devi and Labour Commissioner to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. This application is mis-conceived since the parties cannot be added at this belated stage and the same were required to be arrayed at the initial stage when the process as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 commenced. The workman was required to issue the demand notice to the parties whom he intends to implead now at the thresh-hold. The up-shot of the above discussion is that since there is no master-servant relationship between the parties, the award dated 26.5.2006 is not sustainable and the same is set aside. However, in the interest of justice, the workman is permitted to raise fresh demand notice to the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Chillarh, Post Office Manlog Kalan, Tehsil Ramshehar as well as Smt. Kanta Devi for the redressal of his grievance within a period of six weeks from today. The Labour-cum- - 4 - Conciliation Officer, Solan Zone will initiate the conciliation proceedings and submit the report to the State Government within a period of six weeks after the receipt of the notice. The State Government will take a decision within four weeks after the receipt of the report of the Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer, Solan Zone and make a reference to the Labour Court, Shimla in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed in view of the observations made hereinabove with no order as to costs. January 08, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma) (sck). Judge