INDERJEET GOEL Vs. DILIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Admit. Issue notice. Mr. C. S. Kotwani appears for the respondent No. 3. For the purposes of this appeal respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are not necessary to be served as their rights are not affected in any view of the matter Hence their service is dispensed with. This appeal has come in peculiar circumstances. The respondent No. 1 was an employee of the State in the Public Health and Engineering Department at Nohar Division in Sri Ganganagar district. While he was working as Beldar, his services were alleged to be terminated on January 7, 1987 unceremoniously which led to raising of an industrial dispute and a reference to Labour Court to examine the validity of alleged termination of service. The award of labour Court dated July 19, 1993 resulted in holding the retrenchment to be invalid and direction to reinstate the workman with full back wages.

(2.) AGGRIEVED with that award, a writ petition was filed before this Court. The petitioner in the writ petition was described as Executive Engineer, PHED, Nohar, District Sri Ganganagar. It appears from the order passed in appeal that the learned single Judge was of the opinion that the workman being an employee of the State, the petition could not have been filed in the name of Executive Engineer, PHED, Nohar and in the wake of this 1 objection raised by the Court suo motu the cause title of petition was amended and in place of Executive Engineer, PHED, Nohar, District Sri Ganganagar, the State of Rajasthan through the Executive Engineer, PHED Nohar, District Sri Ganganagar was substituted. It further appears that this fact has seriously affected the consideration of end relief to be awarded, by assuming that writ petition had been filed by Executive Engineer in his personal capacity.

(3.) WHILE dismissing the writ petition on merit, the Court directed that though workman is entitled to recover the arrears of back wages from State, the State Government shall be entitled to recover the said amount from the then Executive Engineer, Nohar who filed the writ petition. Aggrieved with this direction that the appellant who was the then Executive Engineer, Nohar, has filed this appeal challenging the direction of recovering the amount in respect of filing of appeal which he had only acted in discharge of his, official duty,