Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the Management who is also the Principal Employer. They have come forward challenging the preliminary order passed by the first respondent/Labour Court in I.A.No.16 of 2009 in I.D.No.11 of 1999 dated 3.3.2010. 2. The circumstances leading to passing of the impugned order is as follows: The Union Territory of Puducherry by G.O.Rt.No.51/99/Lab/L dated 19.4.1999 referred the following issue for adjudication. "Whether the refusal of employment to the workmen as mentioned in Annexue II of this order by the management of M/s. P.L. Haulwel – 9 on the ground that they are the employees of their contractor Thiru.Selvaraj, is justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled to? To compute the relief, if any , awarded in terms of money, if it can be so computed." On such reference being made, the first respondent, Labour Court took up the dispute on file as I.D.No.11 of 1999. The second respondent Union filed the Claim Statement dated 9.4.2009 seeking the relief against the petitioner Management. However, the petitioner Management challenges the order of reference by writ petition in W.P.No.13562/1999 before the Court. The contention of the Management was that the claim ought to have been made against the 3rd respondent Contractor. Therefore, the reference passed against the petitioner Management was incompetent. The Court by order dated 9.2.2009 dismissed the said writ petition and while dismissing the writ petition, this court held that the 3rd respondent himself has filed earlier writ petition in W.P.No.10608/1999 and this Court had dismissed that writ petition on 29.7.2008. 3. In both the cases, this Court has also viewed that since the case of the workmen was the employees of the petitioner Management, it is for them to answer the reference. The question of a particular party being impleaded or not being impleaded will not arise. In that view of the matter, this Court dismissed the writ petition and also noted that since it was the reference of the year 1999 and more than 10 years have elapsed, the matter requires expeditious disposal. After the disposal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner Management, they have also filed the counter statement dated 2.6.2009. In the counter statement their defence stand was that the claim will have to be made only against the third respondent Contractor and it is not a proper Industrial Dispute. 4. After the disposal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner Management, they have also filed the counter statement dated 2.6.2009. In the counter statement their defence stand was that the claim will have to be made only against the third respondent Contractor and it is not a proper Industrial Dispute. 4. After taking such a stand, the Management filed interim application being I.A.No.16 of 2009 seeking impleadment of the 3rd respondent Labour Contractor as the necessary party to the reference. The Labour Court by its order dated 3.3.2010 refused to entertain the said application. The Labour Court, after referring to the direction of expeditious disposal of the case also held that the Labour Contractor is not a necessary party to the Industrial Dispute and if the Management so desired, they were at liberty to examine the proposed party at the time of trial. It is against this order, the writ petition has been filed. 5. Mr.Sanjay Mohan, the learned counsel for the petitioner Management submitted that since the order of reference did not include the 3rd respondent, they were forced to make the application. Even if the 3rd respondent was not a party in the reference, the Labour Court has power to implead necessary and proper parties. Therefore, the order of the Labour Court is erroneous. He also stated that in the earlier occasion, this Court stated that the workmen were employees of the 3rd respondent Contractor and it is only in the nature of defence. Therefore, they can be made as a party to the case. 6. The contention raised bythe petitioner counsel is without substance. The statement that the management can putforth its stand in the form of defence did not mean that to prove its point in that such person must be a party to the dispute. In the normal circumstances, the Labour Court is bound to answer the reference in terms of Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is only in case where the award is sought to be made applicable to a third party by virtue of Section 18(3), a new party can be impleaded. It is one thing to state that the workmen who raised dispute are not their workmen and no relief can be claimed. 7. In the present case, the second respondent Union do no propose to implead any other party. It is one thing to state that the workmen who raised dispute are not their workmen and no relief can be claimed. 7. In the present case, the second respondent Union do no propose to implead any other party. Under such circumstances, the concept of dominus litus arises. Whether by impleading or not impleading, it is for the workmen to prove their case before the Tribunal. The petitioner management in respect of their counter case, can prove their stand by way of evidence either in the nature of oral or documentary evidence if the circumstances warrant so. Every person who is in the position of a witness need not be made as a party to the dispute. The Labour Court is right in rejecting the same. 6. It also remains to be stated that the dispute which has to be disposed of within a maximum period of six months is pending for more than eleven years. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court in the interim application. The Supreme Court in S.K. Verma Vs. Mahesh Chandra reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1462 has held as follows: "There appear to be three preliminary objections which have become quite the fashion to be raised by all employers, particularly public sector corporations, whenever an industrial dispute is referred to a tribunal for adjudication. One objection is that there is no industry, a second that there is no industrial dispute and the third that the workman is no workman. It is a pity that when the Central Government in all solemnity, refers an industrial dispute for adjudication, a public sector corporation which is an instrumentality of the State instead of welcoming a decision by the Tribunal on merits so as to absolve itself of any charge of being a bad employer or of victimisation etc. should attempt to evade decision on merits by raising such objections and never thereby satisfied, carry the matter other times to the High Court and to the Supreme Court, wasting public time and money. We expect public sector corporations to be model employers and model litigants. We do not expect them to attempt to avoid adjudication or to indulge in luxurious litigation and drag: workmen from court to court merely to vindicate, not justice, but some rigid technical stand taken up by them. We expect public sector corporations to be model employers and model litigants. We do not expect them to attempt to avoid adjudication or to indulge in luxurious litigation and drag: workmen from court to court merely to vindicate, not justice, but some rigid technical stand taken up by them. We hope that public sector corporation will henceforth refrain from raising needless objections, fighting needless litigations and adopting needless postures." Though the said case arose in the context of the Central Government Company, the observations made by the Supreme Court will also squarely apply to the present case. 9. In the light of the same, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed.