A dispute was pending before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Sagar in Case No.22/09 WC Fatal filed by respondents No.1 to 5 herein, who are the LRs of deceased employee. During the pendency of the proceedings, an application was moved by the writ petitioner seeking to implead one J.P. Bidi Company Pathariya Fatak, Damoh on the ground that it is a necessary party since they were employer of the deceased. The application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition was filed. An interim order of stay of further proceedings was granted. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge by the impugned order came to the view that it is the plaintiff alone who can decide who is to be arrayed as respondents. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to implead anyone else in the proceedings. Since the matter was kept pending for 8 years by depriving the dependents of the deceased workman of the legitimate workman compensation ,a cost was also imposed while dismissing the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the instant appeal is filed. During the course of the proceedings, we were of the view that it will be necessary to issue notice to the proposed respondent in order to adjudicate this appeal. Notices were issued by the order dated 13.01.2023. At request of appellant's counsel, he was also permitted to take out humdast notice on the proposed respondent. Notices have been served on 19.1.2023, which service of notice has also been mentioned in the affidavit of the appellant. Therefore, notice on the proposed respondent is deemed to have been servedLearned counsel for the appellant contends that it is necessary to implead the proposed respondent, as they are a just and necessary party to the adjudication of the case. The same is disputed by the learned counsels appearing for the respondents No.1 and Primarily they submit that the claim for compensation has been pending almost for a decade and therefore, it would serve no purpose in hearing the proposed respondent. Furthermore, there is a dispute as to whether the proposed respondent is the employer or whether it is the instant appellant herein. Heard learned counsels. Learned counsel submits that the application for impleading the proposed respondent contains the reasons why it requires to be impleaded