(1.) Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in this matter. This petition has been filed by the NTPC against an order of reference which is being referred as hereunder:
(2.) The respondent-workman is entitled to be declared as an employee of the principal employer. In paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the claim filed by the respondent-workman this has been very clearly stated by the respondent-workman. The objection taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent-workman is not their employee but a contractor's workman and if the reference is to be made the contractor and other persons through whom the respondent-workman is setting up his claim, is to be a party.
(3.) Ms. Mahma Maurya who appears for the respondent-workman argues that ultimately the claim lies against the principal employer and it has not even necessary to make contractor as a necessary party. But that is not so.