Judgment:
Rajesh Balia, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit. Issue notice.
Mr. C.S. Kotwani appears for therespondent No. 3. For the purposes of thisappeal respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are notnecessary to be served as their rights are notaffected in any view of the matter Hence theirservice is dispensed with.
This appeal has come in peculiar circumstances. The respondent No. 1 was an employee of the State in the Public Health & 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,
4. Firstly, we would like to draw attention to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act which is a special law governing the field of adjudication of disputes under the said Act. The definition of employer given in Section 2(g) of the Act is as under:
(g) 'employer' means-
(i) in relation to an industry carried on by or under the authority of any department of the Central Government or a State Government, the authority prescribed in this behalf, or where no authority is prescribed, the head of the department;
(ii) in relation to an industry carried on by or on behalf of a local authority, the Chief, executive officer of that authority.
5. This provision unequivocally conveys that in the matter arising as an industrial dispute, the employer has a special meaning vis-a-vis the establishment where the State is a paramount employer. It clearly postulates in relation to an industry carried on by or under the authority of any department of the Central Government or a State Government, the authority prescribed in this behalf, or where no authority is prescribed, the head of the department. Thus clearly, employer envisaged for the purposes of the Act and in whose names proceedings are to be initiated for or against, is not necessarily in the name of the State but is conducted in the name of the Head of the Department or the persons named in this behalf for the purposes of the Act, to be treated as an employer. It is because of this provision, the reference also was not made between the State as an employer but the Executive Officer, PHED, Nohar and the workman as his employee. As the proceedings arose out of the award and the writ was for the purpose of issue of a writ of certiorari, the parties who were named between whom the dispute has arisen in the order of reference to the Labour Court, were also stated to be the parties in the writ petition. Therefore, in our opinion, there was no irregularity in filing the writ petition in the name of Executive Engineer, PHED at Nohar Division as the employer, who was deemed to be the employer in view of Section 2(g) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Moreover, at best it was a case of mis-description of party but not of nonjoinder of necessary parties so as to draw any inference of dereliction on the part of the Executive Engineer concerned to saddle with him personal liability.
6. Therefore, in our opinion, there was nooccasion for the learned single Judge to haveentertained a doubt that a petition has been filedin personal capacity and for that reason to holdthe then Executive Engineer who has filed thewrit petition, personally liable for the recoveryof the amount when there is no dispute aboutthe fact that respondent's retrenchment hasbeen found to be invalid not on account of malafide but on account of legal defect. Moreover,it is not the finding of the learned single Judgethat the Executive Engineer was responsible forretrenchment of the respondent negligently for which the public exchequer should not be burdened vicariously.
7. Thus, taking any view, we find no justification for direction to recover the arrears of back wages from the then Executive Engineer, who filed the writ petition in discharge of his official duties as per instructions of the Competent Authority.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The direction and order under appeal to the extent it relates to recovery of the amount of back wages to be paid to the respondent from the then Executive Engineer, who has filed the writ petition, are deleted. Rest of the order is not in challenge.
9. No order as to costs.