The Labour Court erred in declining to adjudicate an industrial dispute solely on the ground that Gram Panchayat was not impleaded as a party, as the Zila Parishad and Panchayat Samiti, under whose jurisdiction Gram Panchayat fell, were parties to the dispute and could have adequately represented the Gram Panchayat.

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. 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