JUDGMENT : This writ petition has been filed for the following relief : “For issuance of direction upon the concerned Respondents to reinstate in services of nine (9) persons namely (1) Dashrath Kamat (2) Gopal Prasad, (3) Sri Jawahar, (4) Jadav Nath, (5) Shiv Lal, (6) Nibas Ghosh (7) Vishnu Kumar Kamat, (8) Krishna Deo Mahto and (9) Jagdish Kamat as per the Charter of Demands made before the General Manager M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. Jamshedpur 831010 (Annexure-4) and to quash the order dated 24.08.1994 (Annexure-6) which is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction as well as beyond eth scope and ambit of Reference (Annexure-3).” 2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner while explaining the reasons for delay in challenging the impugned order dated 24.08.1994 in W.P.(L). No.6385 of 2018 has submitted that the learned court below did not proceed in the matter after passing of the impugned order. The learned counsel has submitted that the person who was impleaded as a party to the proceedings vide impugned order dated 24.08.1994 filed a petition on 30.10.2018 to disqualify and debar the Telco Canteen Employees Union to participate in the present proceedings. He has also submitted that the petitioner had moved this Court earlier in W.P.(L). No.3420 of 2009 wherein the petitioner had confined his prayer with respect to the direction upon the respondent authorities to expedite the matter pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi as reference was made in the year 1993 itself and in the final order dated 12.01.2021 passed in the writ petition, a direction was passed by this Court to expedite the matter preferable within 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 3. The learned counsel submits that though the order impugned is dated 24.08.1994, but the matter remained pending and not much water having flown, no prejudice has been caused by delay in approaching this Court. 4. On the merit of the case, the learned counsel has submitted that the relief is primarily against the respondent no.2-company and the dispute is between the petitioner and the respondent no.2. 4. On the merit of the case, the learned counsel has submitted that the relief is primarily against the respondent no.2-company and the dispute is between the petitioner and the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 is already under legal obligation under the Factories Act to maintain the canteen and therefore even if any agent has been employed by the respondent-company, the same has no bearing in the matter and the persons employed in the canteen are to be treated as employees of the respondent no.2. The learned counsel submits that therefore the so-called agent in the canteen namely H.N. Parikh and Company has no role to play and therefore the impugned order making respondent no.4 as party to the proceedings calls for interference by this Court. 5. The learned senior counsel has further referred to the order dated 10.12.1993 wherein the petition of the management dated 12.08.1993 making a prayer to implead M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company as necessary party to the reference was rejected by stating that M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company cannot be said to be necessary party in the reference because M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company will not be affected by the award to be given in the reference. The learned counsel submits that once the order dated 10.12.1993 was passed rejecting the petition of the Management wherein it was pleaded that M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company is a necessary party in the proceedings, the same could not have been reviewed by the learned court below while passing the impugned order dated 24.08.1994. 6. He submits that by the impugned order dated 24.08.1994, the prayer made on behalf of M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company for impleading it as a necessary party in the case was allowed and thereafter, vide order dated 16.09.1994, M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company was asked to file written statement. Learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company is neither a necessary party nor a proper party nor any relief has been claimed by the petitioner against M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company and therefore, M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company is third party, who could not have been made party to the present proceedings. 7. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was the specific case of the M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company that it was a partnership firm carrying on business of contract jobs and is a licensed contractors under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and rules framed thereunder in respect of running and maintaining an industrial canteen for the benefits of the workers of M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur and M/s. H.N. Parikh was awarded contract job by the principal i.e. M/s Telco Ltd., Jamshedpur for running and maintaining Telco canteen and for the said purpose of running and maintaining Telco canteen, he has employed more or less 421 workmen and was running the canteen for more than a decade. Prior to award of contract job, the canteen was being run by another contractor namely M/s. R.H. Amin & Co. in which the managing partner of M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company was the dominant partner. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that the impugned order dated 24.08.1994 has been passed on a petition filed by M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company whereby the petition was allowed by making M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company a party to the proceedings adjudicating a reference under industrial dispute between the petitioner and the Respondent no.2. The fact remains that inspite of pendency of reference since 1993, the matter remained pending and much water has not flown. In the meantime, M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company filed a petition in 2018 to disqualify and debar the Telco Canteen Employees Union to participate in the proceedings to represent the workmen, which triggered filing of the writ petition before this court challenging the very impleadment of M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company in the pending reference. However, the reference continues to be pending for adjudication. The outcome of the petition filed by M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company to debar the petitioner to participate in the proceedings to represent the workmen has not been brought on record before this court but at the same time the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned court below did not proceed in the matter. 9. The outcome of the petition filed by M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company to debar the petitioner to participate in the proceedings to represent the workmen has not been brought on record before this court but at the same time the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned court below did not proceed in the matter. 9. The records reveal that the terms of reference before the learned court was :- A. Whether relationship employer and employees establishes between employees working in Telco Canteen and M/s Telco Ltd. Jamshedpur if so, what should be designation, pay and other facilities of employees working in Telco Canteen. B. Whether termination of services of Sarveshri Dasrath Kamt, Gopal Prasad, Shivlal, Vishnu Kumar Kamat, Jagdish Kamat, Yadavnath, Subhash, Krishnadeo Mahato is proper? If not, whether they should be re-instated on works or/and should be given compensation. 10. The petitioner had filed the written statement before the learned court below making specific statement at paragraph 12 as follows: - “12. That on and from 01.04.1974 the Telco management introduced an agent between the Telco management and the Telco Canteen Employees to distribute salary/wages to Canteen employees. M/s. R.H. Amin & Co. was such agent during 01.04.1974 to 31.03.1980 and from 01.04.1980 M/s. H.N. Pareek & Co. is such agent.” 11. From perusal of paragraph 12 of the written statement filed by the petitioner before the learned court below, it is apparent that it is the specific case of the petitioner that on and from 01.04.1980, M/s. H.N. Parik and Company was introduced as an agent between the Telco Management and Telco Canteen Employees. It further appears that earlier a petition was filed by the management to implead M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company as a necessary party in the proceedings which was rejected by order dated 10.12.1993 by holding that M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company will not be affected by the award in the reference. Subsequently a petition was filed by M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company for seeking intervention making various statements regarding the relationship between M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company and the workman/ Canteen employees including the certificate of standing order said to be governing the employees working in the Telco canteen who are said to be supervised by M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company and they also have a separate P.F Code and explaining the relationship with the canteen employees. The learned court below vide order dated 24.08.1994 allowed the petition filed by M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company by citing the following reasons: - “Since certain points which have been raised on behalf of M/s H.N. Pareek & Co. and the management of Telco as well as the points which have been taken in to consideration in the authorities cited above on behalf of the workmen as also the above noted submissions made on behalf of the workmen, a prayer made on behalf of M/s H.N. Pareek & Co. for impleading it as a necessary party in this case is to be allowed at this stage because it is necessary to take into consideration as to who pays wages etc. to the employees of canteen, who controls and supervises of the management of the canteen, who has the power to take disciplinary action against the employees of canteen who are the parties to the contract, whether the employees of canteen are part and parcel of the organization who provides accommodation, utensils, furniture etc. for running the canteen and who pays water and electric bills which is not possible in this short hearing. Accordingly the petition which was filed on 17.01.1994 on behalf of M/s. H.N. Pareek and Co. for impleading it as a party in the present reference is allowed. Let M/s. H. N. Pareek and Co. be impleaded as a party in the present reference. Inform Parties.” 12. This court finds that as per the written statement of the workman, M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company was the agent of respondent no.2 and from the impugned order it appears that M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company has been impleaded as a party primarily to bring on record the necessary materials before the court which would be in possession of M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company, the agent to decide the nature of relationship between the management and the employees which is the core issue involved in the reference. There is no dispute that there are certain legal obligations cast upon various companies to maintain canteen, but the same by itself is not sufficient to hold that M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company, who was an agent of the respondent no.2 company, had no role to play. 13. There is no dispute that there are certain legal obligations cast upon various companies to maintain canteen, but the same by itself is not sufficient to hold that M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company, who was an agent of the respondent no.2 company, had no role to play. 13. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 15 SCC 273 (Globe Ground India Employees Union and Lufthansa German Airlines and Another) it has been held in paragraph 10 that whenever an application is filed in adjudication proceedings in a reference under Industrial Disputes Act, for impleadment of party, what is required to be considered is whether such a party who is sought to be impleaded is either necessary party or proper party to decide the lis. The expression necessary or proper parties have also been explained. This court finds that the learned court below has apparently allowed impleadment of M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company after considering the facts brought on record by M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company as the court found that to decide the lis between the parties to the reference, it is necessary to take into consideration as to who pays wages etc. to the employees of canteen, who controls and supervises of the management of the canteen, who has the power to take disciplinary action against the employees of canteen who are the parties to the contract, whether the employees of canteen are part and parcel of the organization who provides accommodation, utensils, furniture etc. for running the canteen and who pays water and electric bills etc. This court is of the considered view that aforesaid points which will certainly fall for consideration while deciding the lis between the parties while deciding the reference even if the Respondent no.2 has a legal obligation to maintain a canteen under one or the other provision of law. Moreover, it is the specific case of the petitioner in the written statement itself that M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company was the agent of the management of the Respondent no.2. Thus, even as per the petitioner M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company has a role in the relationship between the workers in the TELCO canteen and the management of the Respondent no.2. Thus, even as per the petitioner M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company has a role in the relationship between the workers in the TELCO canteen and the management of the Respondent no.2. This court is of the considered view that presence of M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company in the proceedings as a party is essential to determine the lis between the parties in the reference case and for effective adjudication and complete and final decision of the questions involved in the proceedings of the reference case. 14. So far as the earlier order passed by the learned court below dated 10.12.1993 rejecting the petition for impledment of M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company is concerned, the said petition for impledment was filed by the management and the present petition has been filed by M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company by bringing on record the nature of relationship amongst the management, TELCO Canteen employees and M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company , who is an agent of the management even as per the written statement of the petitioner. This court is of the considered view that the rejection of the petition filed by the management vide order dated 10.12.1993 will neither act as an estoppel nor as res-judicata against M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company who filed the subsequent petition seeking impledment by citing the entire gamut of its relationship with the canteen employees. Accordingly, the petition filed by M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company was maintainable inspite of earlier order 10.12.1993. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussions in the light of the facts and circumstances of this case, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order calling for any interference under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 16. Considering the fact that the reference case is of the year 1993, it is not clear from the records as to the reasons for which it has remained pending for years together. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 16. Considering the fact that the reference case is of the year 1993, it is not clear from the records as to the reasons for which it has remained pending for years together. An order dated 12.01.2021 has already been passed by this court in W.P. (L) No. 3420 of 2009 to expeditiously dispose of the reference case and it has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reference case is still pending, this court directs the learned court below to make all endeavor to dispose of the reference case at the earliest without giving any unnecessary adjournments to the parties.