Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 136762 (ALL)

ENGINEER IN CHIEF IRRIGATION DEPTT. LUCKNOW v. U.P.IRRIGATION DEPTT. W.C.M.R.PART TIME EMP.KARMCHARI SANGH

WRIA/2256/2002 · 2025-07-09

Manish Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39088 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2256 of 2002 Petitioner :- Engineer In Chief Irrigation Deptt. Lucknow Respondent :- U.P.Irrigation Deptt. W.C.M.R.Part Time Emp.Karmchari Sangh Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned State Counsel for petitioner. Learned State Counsel, however, is also representing the opposite parties no. 2 & 3. 2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.1. 3. Petition has been filed challenging award dated 13.01.1999 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner in proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. Upon perusal of impugned award, it transpires that four workmen employed by the department concerned had submitted their grievance regarding regularization in service. By means of impugned award, the said prayer for regularization/absorption or appointment by direct recruitment was rejected. The order also indicates that two of whose workmen were subsequently provided engagement in service in the work charge capacity and in keeping with parity thereof, liberty was granted to the State Government to consider the case of remaining two workmen for being engaged in work charge capacity. 5. From a perusal of record, it is evident that the workmen in whose favour the award has partly been made have not been arrayed as opposite parties in the writ petition. The petition, therefore, is clearly misconceived on account of non-joinder of necessary parties. 6. Furthermore the relief so sought appears to have been rendered infructuous by efflux of time since the aspect of two persons having already been engaged on the work charge basis is clearly established from the award and remaining two persons do not appear to have challenged the award on the ground of arbitrariness. 7. In view thereof, the petition is dismissed not only on account of non-joinder of necessary parties but also on account of having been rendered infructuous. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench