ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition impugning the award dated 31.3.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, CGIT -cum-Labour Court-II, where-under it has been held that action of the General Manager of the respondent in denying the employment of the petitioner as Peon through them, in the Office of the Secretary BMCC/DS/(OM) was legal and justified and that the petitioner/workman was not entitled to any relief as prayed for. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute against the respondent pursuant to conciliation proceedings between the parties having failed. The terms of reference as forwarded by the Ministry of Labour, Central Government for adjudication were as below: "Whether the action of the General Manager, Badarpur Thermal Power Station, New Delhi-l10 044 in denying the employment of Shri Vijay Kumar Bisht, Peon through them in the Office of Secretary, BMCC/DC(OM) through making payment of his wages on vouchers and then suddenly verbally stopping him from services w.e.f 23.6.2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief and benefits she is entitled to." 2. The petitioner claims that he was in the employment of the respondent since 24.12.1997 as a Peon and has worked under its oral instructions; that the petitioner is entitled for regularization in service as Peon with the respondent/management, also release of his due salaries from the period of December, 1999 to 23rd June, 2000 and to be considered as having spent on duty the intervening period from 24th June, 2000 to the date of his reinstatement in service, as his services were terminated wrongfully by the respondent management. 3. The said claim of the petitioner was contested by the respondent/management by filing a written statement and raising therein a preliminary objection that the petitioner has not impleaded the Union of India as a party in the present case, particularly, since he claimed that he was serving in the Ministry of Power, Government of India and, thus, Union of India was a necessary and proper party to the proceedings. It was also stated that the petitioner was neither employed by the respondent/management nor had he ever served in any such capacity with the respondent. It was also stated that the petitioner was neither employed by the respondent/management nor had he ever served in any such capacity with the respondent. It was further submitted that the petitioner neither produced any appointment letter nor any posting/deputation order by which he was posted at the Office of Secretary, BMCC, and that there was no relationship of employer-employee between the petitioner and the respondent, and consequently, the question of his discontinuance from the service of the respondent did not arise. After completion of pleadings, evidence was adduced in the matter and the parties addressed arguments before the Court below, which gave an award as referred to hereinabove. 4. In the present writ petition, the Counsel for the petitioner submits that non-impleadment of Union of India as a party before the Industrial Adjudicator was an error on the part of the Counsel for the petitioner and that the petitioner should not be made to suffer on account of the fault of his Counsel. It is further stated that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 11(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act to enforce the attendance of witnesses, but there is no finding of the Tribunal in this regard. It is contended that in spite of the fact that the Tribunal is vested with the powers to enforce the attendance of witnesses in order to ensure proper adjudication in the matter, it failed to do so, thus causing injustice to the petitioner. 5. Upon being asked as to whether the petitioner filed any such list of witnesses referred to by the petitioner in Ground 3.4 of the Grounds raised in the writ petition, it was stated that such an application was made before ALC(C) and that the said application was part of the record before the Tribunal. 6. Per contra, attention of this Court has also been drawn by the Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent to the observations made in the award to the effect that evidence was adduced by both the parties. It is also not denied by the petitioner that the application in question was filed for enforcing the attendance of certain witnesses before the ALC(C) and not before the Tribunal. 7. It is also not denied by the petitioner that the application in question was filed for enforcing the attendance of certain witnesses before the ALC(C) and not before the Tribunal. 7. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the conciliation proceedings held between the parties on 8.11.2001 show that all opportunities, as required, were given to the petitioner as well as to the respondent, but the parties submitted that they did not wish to place reliance on any documents, etc., other than what was placed on the file, and thus the arguments of the petitioner in this regard are contrary to the records and are misconceived. 8. It is not understood as to how the Presiding Officer was expected to exercise powers vested in him under Section 11(3) of the ID Act as the attendance of the aforesaid witnesses could only be enforced in terms of the aforesaid provision, when the said provision has not even been invoked by the petitioner. Mere reliance on an application filed under Section 11 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the ALC(C) for enforcement of attendance of certain witnesses cannot be of any assistance of the petitioner, insofar as his claim of failure on the part of the Industrial Adjudicator to enforce the attendance before the said Court is concerned. 9. The petitioner can also not be permitted to raise a plea that non-impleadment of Union of India as a party ought not to have been held against him, particularly when the said plea of non-impleadment was taken by the respondent/management at the very first instance at the time of filing its written statement. It has been specifically mentioned in the impugned award that the management had filed its written statement where it categorically took a stand that the Union of India was a necessary and proper party in the light of allegations made in the statement of claim, and non-impleadment of Union of India as a party would vitiate the entire proceedings. Despite the said position, the petitioner chose not to implead the Union of India as a party and seeks to assail the impugned award on said ground today. It is not permissible for the petitioner to challenge the findings given in the impugned award on this ground in the present petition. Despite the said position, the petitioner chose not to implead the Union of India as a party and seeks to assail the impugned award on said ground today. It is not permissible for the petitioner to challenge the findings given in the impugned award on this ground in the present petition. Merely blaming the Counsel for failure to implead the Union of India as a party in the proceedings, particularly when the case of the petitioner was that he was serving as a Peon in the Ministry of Power, Government of India, cannot be a ground to interfere with the impugned award. 10. There is no other argument raised by the Counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition apart from the aforesaid pleas. This Court has carefully perused the impugned award and the findings given therein. In the opinion of this Court, the findings therein do not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or perversity and do not deserve to be interfered with. The writ petition is therefore dismissed being devoid of merits. Writ Petition dismissed.