1. Claim petitions challenging an arbitration award regarding pay scales were dismissed by a Tribunal for non-impleadment of necessary parties. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 955
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.R.Babu : S.Saghir Ahmad
M.V.Ravindranath
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : 7728 of 1996
Date of Decision : 9/8/98
A court or tribunal should not dismiss a petition on the technical ground of non-impleadment of necessary parties without first granting the petitioner an opportunity to implead the parties likely to be affected by the decision.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Impleadment of necessary parties - Dismissal of claim petitions on technical grounds - Opportunity to implead parties - Remittal of matter for decision on merits - Where the Tribunal dismissed claim petitions on the ground that necessary parties who would be affected by the final order were not impleaded, without providing an opportunity to the petitioners to implead such parties, the same is improper - Matter should be remitted back to the Tribunal to allow impleadment and decide the case on merits. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
Claim petitions were filed challenging the recommendations of a Board of Arbitration regarding pay scales, alleging violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Tribunal dismissed the petitions on the ground that employees who had already been selected for upgraded posts and would be affected by any adverse decision were not impleaded as respondents.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal failed to enter into the merits of the controversy and dismissed the petitions on technical pleas. The appellants should have been given an opportunity to implead the necessary parties before the petitions were rejected.
Issues: Whether the claim petitions could be dismissed solely on the ground of non-impleadment of necessary parties without granting the petitioners an opportunity to rectify the defect.
Ratio Decidendi: A case should not be dismissed on the technical ground of non-impleadment of necessary parties without first providing the party an opportunity to implead those persons likely to be affected by the ultimate decision.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contended that an opportunity to implead necessary parties should have been provided before the petitions were dismissed on technical grounds. (Para 3 )
3. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petitions on technical pleas without entering into the merits of the controversy. (Para 2 , 4 )
4. Petitions should not be dismissed for non-impleadment of necessary parties without first granting the petitioner an opportunity to implead the affected parties. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed; Tribunal's order set aside and matter remitted for impleadment of necessary parties and subsequent decision on merits. (Para 4 )
6. Whether a claim petition can be dismissed for non-impleadment of necessary parties without granting the petitioner an opportunity to implead them?
The court held that an opportunity should first be given to the petitioners to implead persons likely to be affected by the final order before dismissing the petitions on such technical grounds. (Para 3 , 4 )
S.SAGHIR AHMAD, J.
(1) THE claim petitions by the present appellants were rejected by the Tribunal on two grounds, set out in its judgment dated 5-11-1993 as under:
"11. As already observed, the reference to the Board of Arbitration is mandatory if the joint consultative machinery records disagreement. Clause 21 of Appendix A to CPRO No. 25/71 states that subject to the overriding authority of Parliament the recommendations of the Board of Arbitration are binding on the parties. There is no provision in the CPRO enabling the employees to challenge the award in any forum. But Shri Y. Suryanarayana argues that even the arbitrators are bound by the law of the country and if the recommendations of the arbitrators are violative of the provisions of the Constitution the same can be challenged.
12. These OAs were filed after Parliament accepted the modification suggested by the Central Government in regard to the date of commencement of the award and OM dated 11-11-1988 was issued on Parliament accepting the modification. On the basis of seniority-cum-fitness the SSAs were selected to the upgraded posts as envisaged under the said order and they were also paid on that basis. Such of those SSAs who were selected to the upgraded posts are not impleaded as respondents in these OAs. If it can be held that the recommendations of the Board of Arbitration are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, then it is open to the Central Government to consider, in the light of clause 21 of Appendix A to CPRO No. 25/17 as to whether the acceptance of the higher scale for all the SSAs affects national economy and if the Central Government comes to the said view it may not be accepted and then none of the SSAs will get the benefit of the higher scale. Thus, if the contention of the applicants that the award insofar as it prescribes two scales for the category of SSA is violative of Articles 14 and 16 is accepted, the Central Government may claim reconsideration in regard to the modification of the award and if the Central Government suggests further modification of the award and if Parliament accepts it, then those SSAs who are already selected to the upgraded post will be affected. It is not open to the court or tribunal to decide in regard to any matter in the absence of the parties affected. As those SSAs who were selected for the upgraded posts are going to be affected if the contention of the applicants is going to be accepted and as those SSAs are not parties to these OAs, these OAs have to be dismissed for not impleading them as necessary parties.
13. In the above circumstances we feel it not necessary to express on merits in regard to points whether the award of the Board of Arbitration can be challenged on the ground that it is violative of provisions of the Constitution, and if so whether the recommendation of two separate scales for the same category of officers is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India when a particular percentage of posts were upgraded for giving higher pay scale and when selection for upgraded posts is on the basis of mere seniority-cum-suitability and when the demand was for parity of pay scale with the employees of another category on the basis of equal pay for equal work.
14. In the result both these OAs are dismissed. No costs."
(2) IT was for these two reasons that the Tribunal did not enter into the merits of the controversy and dismissed the claim petitions on the technical pleas.
(3) MR A.T.M. Sampath, learned counsel for the appellants has stated that because the claim petitions were rejected on the ground of non-impleadment of necessary parties, an opportunity should have first been given to the appellants to implead those persons who were likely to be affected by the final order. It is stated that this opportunity can be provided to the appellants even at this stage.
(4) HAVING regard to the nature of the controversy
