Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24.04.1998 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. 3. The writ petition was filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the Award of the Labour Court dated 20.07.1992 adjudicating the reference submitted to it as reconciliation proceedings have failed. The reference was made whether in spite of workman Gomati Shankar was continuously working on the post of Mistri in the Irrigation Department, Banswara, his fixation in the pay scale as applicable to Belder under the work charge establishment was valid and legal? 4. As per his claim the respondent workman was first appointed on 01.08.1976 on muster roll with the establishment on daily wage of Rs. 6/-. He was discharging functions of Mistri from since 01.08.1978 and was drawing emoluments of the same post. He was given status of semi permanent by order dated 01.04.1982 and by order dated 010.1983 his pay scale was fixed. However, he was given the pay scale of Beldar only. He was aggrieved with the aforesaid fixation in the pay scale applicable to Beldar. He raised two fold dispute, firstly he ought to have been declared semi permanent from 01.08.1980 and, secondly he ought to have been fixed in the pay scale applicable to Mistri from the date of he was discharging duties of Mistri from August, 1978. 5. The present appellant employer in reply to claim declined that the workman has worked against the post of Mistri from 01.08.1978 to 30.11.1981, but admitted that he completed 2 years in 1980. However, it was stated that it was not incumbent upon department to declare work charge employee as semi permanent on completion of 2 years service and that the same can be done only when the services are satisfactory and on availability of the vacancies. It was also stated that the aggrieved workman had not only worked on the post of Mistri but worked on different posts. Since, on his completion of 2 years service on muster roll on 011.1981 he was allowed the pay scale of Beldar w.e.f. 011.1981, but on the same post he was declared semi permanent with effect from 01.04.1982. 6. It was also stated that the aggrieved workman had not only worked on the post of Mistri but worked on different posts. Since, on his completion of 2 years service on muster roll on 011.1981 he was allowed the pay scale of Beldar w.e.f. 011.1981, but on the same post he was declared semi permanent with effect from 01.04.1982. 6. Great stress was laid on the fact that when the revised pay scale came into force some where in 1983, he gave his option to be fixed in revised pay scale of the post of Beldar. According to the appellants this admission of workman precludes him from claiming pay scale of applicable to post of Mistri. It was also stated by the respondent in their reply that during his service he was temporarily promoted as Mistri, but by his oral consent he was not found eligible and he was reverted back to the post of Beldar. Therefore, his pay was fixed in the pay scale of Beldar on his own concession. 7. The stand taken by the appellant in reply to claim filed by the workman was stated to be on the basis of record. 8. The Labour Court considered the record furnished by the employer, alongwith muster rolls and other documents and found that muster roll shows that from April, 1979 to November, 1981 the workman was working on the post of Mistri and since from the date of appointment he had worked as Beldar only for one month and at the time of declaring and giving him pay scale for last more than 2 years he was continuously working as Mistri. The pleas taken by the employer on the basis of their own record was acceptable. No record about reversion on concession was produced before the labour Court. With these findings, Award was made that the workman ought to have been made semi permanent as Mistri, and allowed to draw his emoluments in the pay scale of Mistri. 9. Consequently, fixation of the workman in the pay scale of Beldar with effect from 011.1980 was quashed and it was directed that the workman be declared semi permanent on the post of Mistri and thereafter on that very post his fixation be made with all consequential benefits. 10. 9. Consequently, fixation of the workman in the pay scale of Beldar with effect from 011.1980 was quashed and it was directed that the workman be declared semi permanent on the post of Mistri and thereafter on that very post his fixation be made with all consequential benefits. 10. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge without going into the merits solely on the ground that only State of Rajasthan could have challenge the order, and writ filed by the Executive Engineer was not maintainable. 11. We are of the opinion that the ground on the which writ petition was dismissed in limine is not sustainable. A Division Bench of this Court in Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Banswara vs. Kamal Kant & Ors., D.B. Special Appeal No. 695/1998 decided on 30.05.2000, in appeal against a similar order dismissing the writ petition filed by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Banswara, was set aside. The Court reasoned that as the Award has been made on a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act and under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act the expression employer “as defined in Section 2(g) means in relation to any industry carried on by or under the authority of any department of the Central Government or State Government, the authority prescribed in this behalf or where no authority is prescribed, the head of the department. This clearly exclude the possibility of making Central Government or the State Government directly as a party to industrial dispute referred for adjudication under Section 10 of the Act. 12. An Industrial Dispute under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, means any dispute or any difference between the employer and the employees which is connected with the terms of employment or with the condition of the labour of any person. 12. An Industrial Dispute under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, means any dispute or any difference between the employer and the employees which is connected with the terms of employment or with the condition of the labour of any person. The two definitions read together makes it clear that where the dispute is between the employee of the State in relation to the terms of his employment or with condition of the employment of such person and the activity of the State falls within the term Industry under Section 2(j), the person who is to be named as employer for the purposes of Industrial Disputes Act will be the authority prescribed in this behalf from the Department in which the workmen is employed or in the absence of any such prescribed authority the head of such department but in either case State as such is not considered to be mentioned as employer. 13. Moreover, when a reference is made by the appropriate Government and the parties to such dispute referred for adjudication are described by the appropriate Government in its order of reference parties named in the order of reference become the parties to such lis throughout. Since, Executive Engineer Irrigation Department, Banswara has been referred as an employer in the order of reference, continuance of the further litigation by the Executive Engineer Irrigation cannot be held to be suffering from the vice of non joinder of necessary parties. 14. Considering the age of the case and the request of the learned Counsel for the parties for not sending back for deciding by the learned Single, we have examined case on merit ourselves. 15. As noticed above, principal contention of the appellant before the Labour Court was that the workman was not continuously working as Mistri for 2 years at the time when he was entitled to regular pay scale and he has been appointed Beldar on 011.1981 as per affidavit of Devi Das Priyani, on his request. He described oral consent both about ineligibility and inefficiency of workman at the time of reverting him. However, this contention is belied by Annexuure-11 submitted by the appellant alongwith writ petition which is the details of muster rolls revealing that what duties have been discharged by the respondent workman since his first appointment. He described oral consent both about ineligibility and inefficiency of workman at the time of reverting him. However, this contention is belied by Annexuure-11 submitted by the appellant alongwith writ petition which is the details of muster rolls revealing that what duties have been discharged by the respondent workman since his first appointment. This document consists of two pages giving details of the working of respondent workman from June 1978 until November, 1981 when he was granted regular pay scale. We find that first four months he has discharged duty of gauge reader. Thus, it belies the plea of first appointment as Beldar but supports the plea of workman that he was first appointed in 1976 on daily wage of Rs. 6/-. The details further show that respondent discharged duties of Beldar only in October, 1978. Thereafter working shortly, as Store Helper and Store Munshi, he almost continuously functioning as Mistri since June, 1979. In July, 1979 the period has been divided in two parts i.e., 12 days and 14 days. The description of the post Mistri and Munshi, and 15 days in August, 1979 since that date until November, 1981 the respondent workman has discharged functions as Mistri uninterruptedly. In view of this clear material available with the Labour Court, the finding reached cannot be said to be vitiated which could be interfered for with by issuing writ of certiorari in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction. The writ petition otherwise fails on merit. 16. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the writ petition is dismissed on merit.