Judgment :- P.D. DINAKARAN, J. Admittedly, the third respondent co-operative canteen, was formed under Rule 70(6) of the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) by the employees of the petitioners herein. By order, dated July 31, 1991 of the third respondent, the second respondent was dismissed from service. Against the said order of dismissal, dated July 31, 1991, the second respondent raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer under Section 2-A(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Conciliation Officer the writ-petitioner is not a necessary party and ultimately by proceedings, dated September 8, 1992, submitted a failure report. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the Conciliation Officer, dated September 8, 1992, the second respondent raised an industrial dispute namely, I.D. No. 1996 of 1992 under Rule 25B of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, against the third respondent as well as the petitioner herein. Hence, the petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition prohibiting the first respondent from proceeding with the adjudication of I.D. No. 1996 of 1992 in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Sri Sanjay Mohan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner is not a relevant or necessary party in the above I.D. No. 1996 of 1992, as the petitioner is neither the employer of the second respondent nor the second respondent was appointed or terminated by the petitioner. Sri D. Govinda Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent fairly accepts that the second respondent, was appointed and terminated only by the third respondent co-operative canteen, formed under Rule 70(6) of the Rules. Sri D. Govinda Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent fairly accepts that the second respondent, was appointed and terminated only by the third respondent co-operative canteen, formed under Rule 70(6) of the Rules. Rule 70(6) of the Rules, reads as follows : "Where the workers of a factory in which a canteen has been provided by the occupier in accordance with Rules 65 to 67 for the use of the workers, desire to run the canteen by themselves on a co-operative basis with share capital contributed by themselves, the management may permit them to run the canteen in accordance with the bye-laws of the co-operative canteen, the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 (now the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1988), and the rules framed thereunder, subject to such conditions as the Chief Inspector may, in consultation with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madras, impose." If that be so, I am unable to understand how the petitioner-management is a necessary and relevant party to the impugned I.D. No. 1996 of 1992 and, therefore, I do not find any justification to permit the first respondent to adjudicate the I.D. No. 1996 of 1992 against the petitioner-management, as the second respondent was neither appointed nor terminated by the petitioner-management. That apart, in view of the admitted fact the second respondent was appointed and terminated only by the third respondent co-operative canteen which is a separate entity in the eye of law registered under the co-operative societies for running a canteen as permissible under Rule 70(6) of the Rules, this writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 29915 of 1992 is closed.