IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16331 of 2006 Vaishali Power Generating Company, Kanti, Muzaffarpur having its registered office at New Delhi, through its Dy. General Manager…. …..petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Department of Labour Employment and Training Government of Bihar, Patna, 2. Under Secretary, Department of Labour Employment and Training Government of Bihar, Patna, 3. Bihar Jharkhand Rajya Vidyut Parishad Field Kamgar Union, Patna through its General Secretary, Sri Amrendra Prasad Mishra having its office at Khasmahal Road, Chiraiya Tand, Patna- 800001, 4. Bihar State Electricity Board, having its office at Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna through its Chairman… …..Respondents ……………. For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Jha Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, Advocates For the B.S.E.B. : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Swapwil Kumar Singh, A.C. to A.A.G. 2 ………………………. 4 12.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent no.5 and the State. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 16.11.2006 passed by the respondent no.1, whereby application of respondent no.4 for impleading the petitioner as a party to the Reference Case No.2 of 2006 has been allowed and a notice has been issued by 2 the Tribunal, directing the petitioner to appear and file written statement along with the name of its representative in the said reference case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is true that Muzaffarpur (kanti) Thermal Power Station has been transferred from the Bihar State Electricity Board to the Vaishali Power Generation Company Limited. However, in the clause no. 5(i) of the notification dated 08.09.2006, as contained in Annexure-5, it is disclosed in clear terms that all the disputes with regard to personnel related to Muzaffarpur Station filled regarding the termination or retrenchment etc. before the date of transfer including cases pending in any court, tribunal etc. will be taken care of by the Board and the State Government. In case any of them is reinstated/absorbed, he will be reinstated by the Board or the State Government in any of its establishments. Thus, the petitioner, having no liability to that effect, would not be a necessary party in the concerned reference case. However, the impugned order was passed without issuing notice to him. 3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Electricity Board submits that the petitioner should have approached the concerned Tribunal itself clarifying his stand specially when merely a notice was issued by the Tribunal for filing the written statement. However, without doing this, he has approached this Court. In above view of the matter, this writ application is being disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise this issue before the concerned Tribunal itself, if the reference case is still pending. Sanjay-II ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)