JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J. :---Heard.

2.The applicants who are 29 in number apply by way of this chamber summons for direction to the plaintiff to implead them as defendants. Canara Bank, the plaintiff, has filed the suit for recovery of sum of Rs. 47, 52, 964.33, Rs. 48, 70, 672.77, Rs. 66, 60, 785.48, Rs. 12, 31, 095. 09, and, Rs. 6, 01, 154.50 particulars of which have been in the plaint alongwith further interest 23.75% p.a. compounded at quarterly rests from the date of filing of the suit till payment and realisation together with cost against the defendants viz., M/s. Mettalica Industries Limited, and Shri. Hari Shanker Jalan. The claim of the plaintiff Bank is for recovery of aforesaid outstanding amount for the cash credit facility granted to the defendants.

3.The applicants' case in the chamber summons is that they are permanent workmen of the defendant No. 1 company for last so many years. The defendant No. 1 company had been very irregular in making payment of wages to them. According to applicants, the defendant No. 1 and it's management had no lawful reason for delaying the payment of earned wages to them. The workmen have not been paid their legitimate annual increments, and they apprehend that in the event of closure of the company they would not pay any legal dues to them including bonus, provident fund, gratuity. The applicants have already filed complaints for redressal of their grievance under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, Unfair Labour Practice Act') and the said complaints are pending before Industrial Court.

4.Mr. Singhvi , the learned Counsel appearing for applicants strenuously urged that any decree passed in favour of plaintiffs ultimately would affect the rights of the applicants workmen and, therefore, they are proper parties and plaintiff must be asked to implead the applicants as party defendants. In support of his contention, Mr. Singhvi relied upon a judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in (State Bank of India, Plaintiffs v. The Podar Mills Ltd. and others defendants)1, 1988(2) Bom.C.R. 189 (Workers of M/s. Rohtas Industries Ltd., Petitioner v. M/s. Rohtas Industries Ltd. Respondent)2, 1987(2) Supreme Court Cases 588, and (National Textile Workers Union etc., Appellants v. P.R.. Ramakrishnan and others)3, A.I.R. 1983 Supreme Court 75.

5.Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in State Bank of India v. The Podar Mills Ltd. (supra) has been reversed by the Division Bench in appeal in (State Bank of India, appellants v. The Podar Mills Limited and others, respondents)4, A.I.R. 1991 Bombay 370. According to the learned Counsel for the plaintiff the applicants are neither necessary nor proper parties and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot be compelled to implead the applicants as party defendants.

6.A necessary party is a party to the constitution of the suit in whose absence no decree at all can be passed and suit is liable to be dismissed for want of necessary party. On the other hand a proper party is one whose presence enables the Court to adjudicate the dispute effectually and completely. A person who is not party to the suit may be ordered to be added as party defendant to the suit though no relief is claimed against him provided his presence is necessary for complete and effectual decision of the questions involved in the suit. Many a time a party may not be a necessary party but, he may be proper party for adjudication of questions involved in the suit and if that be so, the Court can always ask the plaintiff to implead such party. In a suit for recovery of amount by the plaintiff Bank against the defendant No. 1 the answerable question is whether the applicants-workmen are at all necessary or proper parties?

6-A.I would like to first refer to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in State Bank of India v. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document