JUDGMENT RAJESH TANDON, J. : Rule. Respondents waived service. Both the parties have agreed that the writ petition may be disposed of finally. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.10.2003 passed by the respondent No.1. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that an application was filed by the respondent No. 4 Pravesh Mukhtar for reference under section 4-K of Industrial Disputes Act. By the order dated 30.1.2003 an award was made by which the order terminating the service of respondent No.4 dated 25.2.1991 was set aside and the workman was reinstated by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has also passed an order that the respondent No. 4 shall be given pension and other benefits. It was also directed that in accordance with Rules of 1984 employer shall give due consideration to the employee concerned. 3. Both the parties have approached this Court by filing separate writ petitions. Writ Petition No. 495 of 2003 was filed by Nagar Palika Parishad, Roorkee and Writ Petition No. 520 of 2003 by respondent No. 4 Pravaz Alam claiming back wages. Both the writ petitions are pending before this Court. On 6.6.2003 following order was passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Ghildiyal in Writ Petition No. 495 of 2003. "Issue notice to respondent No.2 returnable at an early date who may file counter affidavit within four weeks. List thereafter. In the mean time execution of award shall remain stayed." Employee concerned has filed an application for vacation of the stay order. Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.C. Verma was pleased to pass the following order on 23.9.2003. "Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of record, I am of the opinion that the order of the Industrial Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity, rather it has been passed in conformity with the earlier judgment of this Court. The stay order dated 6.6.2003 is vacated. List the petition for final hearing." 4. Thereafter another application was filed by Nagar Palika Parishad for modification of the order passed on 23.9.2003 and on 13.11.2003 Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.C. Verma was pleased to pass the following order: "Heard Sri B.S. Verma learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tanveer Alam Khan, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2. List the petition for final hearing." 4. Thereafter another application was filed by Nagar Palika Parishad for modification of the order passed on 23.9.2003 and on 13.11.2003 Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.C. Verma was pleased to pass the following order: "Heard Sri B.S. Verma learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tanveer Alam Khan, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2. The application is misconceived as observations made in the order is only for the purposes of interim order. It will not affect the merit of the case. The application is dismissed accordingly." Execution proceedings are pending before the Labour Court in pursuance of s the award. Counsel for the petitioner has 2 stated that during the execution proceedings, the respondent has filed an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner for execution of the award. The petitioner has filed objections against the notice issued on 7.9.2003 for execution of the award. 5. The petitioner has contested the execution proceedings and has filed objections under Rule 28-C to U.P Industrial Dispute Act, praying that Jal Sansthan may be impleaded as one of the party. According to the petitioner he has stated that Jal-kal Department which was being run by Nagar Palika has now been merged in Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan and therefore, the award cannot be executed without impleading Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan as one of the necessary party. It has been alleged that Assistant Labour Commissioner has not applied his mind as to whether, liabilities of Jal-kal Department of Nagar Palika have been transferred to Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan and further Uttaranchal Jal Sans than is a necessary party in the changed circumstances. The application has been simply rejected by a four lines order as under: 6. Aforesaid order shows that the employer was given opportunity to file objection but he was not impleaded as a party. It was incumbent upon respondent No. 1 to have impleaded Jal Sansthan as necessary party as the liabilities of the petitioner Nagar Palika has been shifted to Uttaranchal Jal. Sansthan. So far as the back wages of the workman is concerned, Nagar Palika Parishad, Roorkee is responsible for the entire back wages and other benefits. 7. In the case Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. N.S.K. Khaja Mothideen Saheb, (2001) 10 SCC 697. it has been held by the Apex Court that ,the beneficiary being a necessary party, he ought to have been impleaded. 7. In the case Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. N.S.K. Khaja Mothideen Saheb, (2001) 10 SCC 697. it has been held by the Apex Court that ,the beneficiary being a necessary party, he ought to have been impleaded. Similar principles will apply in the present case as well. The observations of the Apex Court are quoted below: "We are finding in a large number of cases, about which we can take judicial notice that the institution at whose instance acquisition is taken by the State, does not participate in the proceedings, leaving it on the State to contest but when adverse orders are passed, such institution comes in with objections that no opportunity was given to it, hence be impleaded. Of course, objections this Court has said that an opportunity should be given, but a way should be found by bringing a rule through amendment that notice should go to such institutions that if they wish to participate they may do so, then this second exercise by the Courts to reexamine after the impleadment could be eliminated. Normally such institutions apply for impleadment after adverse orders are passed by the referring Court or the High Court. Then the whole issue is sought to be re-examined after their impleadment. This not only delays the conclusion of the proceedings, delays payment of compensation to the claimants but in fact it constitutes a second attempt to get readjudicated what was concluded after the State contested." 8. Apex Court in the case of Government of AP and others v. Kolla Raghavaiah and others Labour Judgments 2001-2002 has observed as under: "We have heard Counsel for parties. It is not disputed that appellants No.2 and 3 were also appellants before the High Court. It is only, the Government of Andhra Pradesh who was not a party in the writ petition as the State Government was not impleaded as respondent in the writ petition, It is also not disputed that Panchayat is getting grant from the State Government and, therefore, the Government of Andhra Pradesh was also a necessary party. In view of the said fact, the Government of Andhra Pradesh was a necessary party to the writ petition and was not impleaded as respondent in the writ petition. Under such circumstances, the High Court ought to have accorded leave to the Government of Andhra Pradesh to file writ appeal. In view of the said fact, the Government of Andhra Pradesh was a necessary party to the writ petition and was not impleaded as respondent in the writ petition. Under such circumstances, the High Court ought to have accorded leave to the Government of Andhra Pradesh to file writ appeal. We are satisfied that the view taken by the High Court in declining to grant leave to the Government of Andhra Pradesh was erroneous. We, therefore, set aside the judgment under appeal and send the case back to the High Court for deciding the appeal preferred by the appellants in accordance with law." 9. Sri Braham Singh Verma, Counsel for the Nagar Palika Parishad, Roorkee has stated that since reinstatement of the workman cannot be made by Nagar Palika in view of the fact that Nagar Palika at present has no locus standi to reinstate respondent No. 4 workman. The order of reinstatement can be passed only by Jal Sansthan, therefore, in order to comply the order of reinstatement of the workman, it will be necessary that U.P Jal Sans than be made a party to the proceedings. 10. Further Sri Braham Singh Verma, Advocate has very fairly conceded that reinstatement order will be considered by Jal Sansthan and so far as back wages and other benefits are concerned the same are within the dominion of Nagar Palika and the same shall also be considered in accordance with the award of the Labour Court. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances both the parties have agreed that benefits given to the employee pursuance to the award shall be considered expeditiously. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is disposed of.