JUDGMENT 1. - Disdained by the impugned award dated 16th August 2002 (Annex.7) passed by the learned Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar, the petitioner workman has laid this writ petition. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this writ petition are that petitioner was in employment of Gram Panchayat, Bolawali as Assistant Secretary with salary of Rs. 250/- per mensem. At the threshold of his appointment, a resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat on 4.5.1993 which was subsequently approved by the third respondent on 14th of September 1994. In January 2001, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.80/2001 praying the relief of regularisation of his services. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 11th of January 2001 directing the respondents to consider his case for regularisation within four months. Yet another writ petition was filed by the petitioner, which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2422 of 2001. The respondents in the said writ petition submitted a letter dated 19th of May 2001 indicating that the petitioners services have already been dispensed with on 13th of March 1995. Taking into account this fact, the relief of regularisation was declined to the petitioner by this Court and the writ petition was dismissed on 13th of July 2001. While disposing the said writ petition, a liberty was given to the petitioner to avail remedy against his alleged illegal termination as well as against the illegal action of the respondents in accordance with law. As per version of the petitioner, thereupon he raised an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (for short, Act of 1947). The dispute raised by the petitioner was considered by the Conciliation Officer and the respondents were called upon to submit their comments. Despite efforts made by the Conciliation Officer, when no settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the Conciliation Officer forwarded its failure report to the appropriate Government and appropriate Government thereafter made a reference for adjudication before the Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar vide its notification dated 13th of August 2001. 3. Despite efforts made by the Conciliation Officer, when no settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the Conciliation Officer forwarded its failure report to the appropriate Government and appropriate Government thereafter made a reference for adjudication before the Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar vide its notification dated 13th of August 2001. 3. Pursuant to the reference made by the appropriate Government, the petitioner submitted his statement of claim alleging therein that oral termination of his services w.e.f. 13th of March 1995 is illegal and void abinitio as the same was not preceded by one months notice or pay in lieu of notice. The petitioner has also averred in the statement of claim that at the time of his oral termination, no retrenchment compensation was paid to him. A specific plea about violation of the principle of last come first go was also raised by the workman. Thus, in substance, in his statement of claim, the petitioner has taken shelter of Section 25-F, G & H of the Act of 1947. That apart, the petitioner has also pleaded violation of Rule 77-78 of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules 1958. The statement of claim was replied by the respondents. In their return, the respondents have raised a plea that the petitioner was not appointed against the sanctioned post and before offering him appointment as Assistant Secretary, no departmental sanction was obtained by the Gram Panchayat concerned. With these averments, the oral termination of the services of the petitioner was denied. A specific objection was raised by the respondents that he was appointed by the Gram Panchayat, Bolawali pursuant to its resolution and therefore without impleading Gram Panchayat, Bolawali, which is a necessary party to the dispute, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this reference. A specific objection was also incorporated in the return that Panchayati Raj Department is not an industry within the four corners of Act of 1947 and therefore the provisions of the Act of 1947 are not applicable. 4. The learned Labour Court thereafter recorded evidence of the rival parties and the petitioner himself submitted his affidavit for substantiating his claim. The petitioner also tendered documentary evidence to prove his case. On behalf of the respondents, affidavit of one Jagraj Singh Punia was tendered. 4. The learned Labour Court thereafter recorded evidence of the rival parties and the petitioner himself submitted his affidavit for substantiating his claim. The petitioner also tendered documentary evidence to prove his case. On behalf of the respondents, affidavit of one Jagraj Singh Punia was tendered. After evidence of the rival parties, the learned Tribunal heard final arguments and by the impugned award answered the reference against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents by holding that reference cannot be answered in favour of the petitioner for not joining Gram Panchayat, Bolawali as party to the dispute. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Saluja, has urged that once the appropriate Government has concluded that there is existence of an industrial dispute between the rival parties and referred the same for adjudication to the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, then in that event it is bounden duty of the Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, to adjudicate the same on merits. Mr. Saluja further submits that industrial dispute once referred by the appropriate Government is not just the dispute stricto senso but it also embraces matters which appear to be connected therewith or relevant thereto. With these submissions, Mr. Saluja has argued that the impugned award whereby the learned Tribunal has declined to adjudicate the reference made by the appropriate Government, solely on the ground that Gram Panchayat has not been impleaded as party to the dispute, is against the basic tenets of industrial jurisprudence. For substantiating this argument, Mr. Saluja has submitted that Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh and Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Hanumangarh, under whose jurisdiction Gram Panchayat, Bolawali is situated, were party to the dispute, and therefore, in these circumstances, denial of relief on this technical pretext by the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained and impugned award is liable to be interfered with. 6. Per contra, Mr. K.K. Bissa, learned Addl. Government Counsel, has stoutly defended the impugned award and submitted that while passing the impugned award, the learned Labour Court has not committed any error much less an error apparent on the face of record warranting interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. 6. Per contra, Mr. K.K. Bissa, learned Addl. Government Counsel, has stoutly defended the impugned award and submitted that while passing the impugned award, the learned Labour Court has not committed any error much less an error apparent on the face of record warranting interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. Bissa has strenuously urged that according to petitioners own version, he was appointed pursuant to resolution of Gram Panchayat, Bolawali, and therefore, in fact he was an employee of Gram Panchayat, Bolawali and that being so, learned Labour Court has rightly declined the relief in want of the employer of the petitioner being impleaded as party to the dispute. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. 8. From a bare perusal of the impugned award, it is amply clear that the learned Labour Court has recorded evidence of the rival parties and the materials requisite for adjudication of the reference on merits were available on record, therefore, obviously it was not desirable from it to decline the adjudication of the reference on merits on a technical pretext that Gram Panchayat is not party to the dispute. That apart, the Zila Parishad and the Panchayat Samiti, under whose jurisdiction Gram Panchayat, Bolawali is situated, were also party to the dispute and therefore they were in a position to put-forward the requisite defence against the claim of the petitioner on behalf of the concerned Gram Panchayat. The order Annex.2 placed on record by the petitioner, which was part of the record before the learned Labour Court, speak volumes about the fact that petitioner was in employment of Gram Panchayat, Bolawali and the learned Labour Court has taken cognizance of that document in the impugned award but for the reasons best known to it, the Labour Court has shirked from its responsibility to adjudicate the dispute on merits. Even otherwise, when the Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh and Panchayat Samiti, Hanumangarh were party to the dispute, under whose jurisdiction Gram Panchayat, Bolawali is situated, the matter relating to joining Gram Panchayat, Bolawali as party to the dispute, is a matter incidental to the dispute referred to the Labour Court for adjudication, which ought to have been taken note of by the learned Tribunal. Having undertaken the exercise of complete trial of the reference, it was not desirable from the learned Labour Court to decline adjudication of the reference solely on the ground that Gram Panchayat, Bolawali is not party to the dispute. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the award impugned cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be interfered with. 9. The net result of the above discussion is that the present writ petition is allowed, impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar dated 16.08.2002 is quashed and set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the learned Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar for deciding it afresh in accordance with law. As the matter is old and the reference pertains to the year 2001, it is expected that learned Labour Court shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible.No order as to costs.Petition Allowed. *******