Order 1, rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable in the case of leave being applied for in respect of the respondents to a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, if the conditions of Order 1, rule 8 are satisfied viz., that there are numerous parties, who are in the same interest.

Headnote:
WRIT PETITION - REPRESENTATION OF RESPONDENTS - ORDER 1, RULE 8, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - APPLICABILITY - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 18(3) - AWARD OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - BINDING EFFECT ON MEMBERS AND NON-MEMBERS OF UNION - WRIT PROCEEDINGS - REPRESENTATION OF WORKMEN - LEAVE UNDER ORDER 1, RULE 8, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - GRANT OF - CONDITIONS.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner sought to join respondents 3 and 4, two of the workmen discharged during the relevant period from August 1 to December 31, 1963, as representing themselves and other workmen who have been similarly discharged, in a writ petition challenging an Order of Reference made by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, in respect of the question as to whether the workmen who were discharged or whose services were terminated by the Company during the period from August 1 to December 31, 1963, should be reinstated in service with all back wages and continuity in service.
Finding of the Court:

1. The Union of workmen which represented them in the Reference has been made respondent No. 2 to the present petition, and the State of Maharashtra has been made respondent No.5. None of the workmen appeared individually at the hearing of the Reference. 2. The Court held that it is necessary to make the workmen concerned parties to the present petition. 3. The Court further held that Order 1, rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable in the case of leave being applied for in respect of the respondents to a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, if the conditions of Order 1, rule 8 are satisfied viz., that there are numerous parties, who are in the same interest.
Issues: 1. Whether respondent No. 2- Union sufficiently represents the workmen discharged during the relevant period in the present proceedings? 2. Whether each of the workmen discharged between August I and December 31, 1963 must individually be made a party respondent to this petition, or whether Order 1, rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to proceedings by way of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution so that any of them can, with the necessary permission of the Court, represent the others so discharged?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Union does not represent the workmen in writ proceedings in this Court, nor would orders passed in writ proceedings by this Court be binding upon the workmen if they are not parties to it. 2. The Court further held that Order 1, rule 8 is, in terms, applicable only to a suit. However, it has been held by the Supreme Court that a writ petition is a civil proceeding if the primary impact of the act which is impugned is on the civil rights of the party aggrieved. 3. The Court held that the procedure under Order 1, rule 8 is inappropriate and inapplicable to the petitioners in a writ petition, as the existence of a right and the infringement thereof are the foundation of the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the right that can be enforced under that Article must ordinarily be "the personal or individual right of the applicant". 4. The Court further held that the granting of leave under Order 1, rule 8 in respect of respondents would obviate the necessity of having, for instance, to join hundreds of employees who might be directly affected in a writ petition by an aggrieved employer or employee.
Final Decision: Leave granted under Order 1, rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure applied for by the petitioners to implead respondents Nos. 3 and 4 on behalf of themselves and other workmen who were discharged or whose services were terminated between August I and December 31, 1963.

JUDGMENT-This petition was admitted by me and Rule issued in terms of prayers (a) and (b) thereof which has been made returnable on September 8, 1969. An application is now made before me for leave under Order 1, rule 8 being granted as far as respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned so that they can represent themselves and all other workers who were discharged by Rallifan Ltd. between August 1, 1963 and December 31, 1963. The only facts which need be set out at this stage are that, by a notification dated May 11, 1964, a Court of Inquiry under section 6 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was constituted by the State Government to inquire into certain matters of dispute between Rallifan Ltd. and their workmen, including the question as to whether the discharge of some of the workmen was justified. It may be stated that Rallifan Ltd. was amalgamated with the petitioner-Company on October 13, 1966. The Court of Inquiry submitted its Report to the Government on June 23, 1966. On February 15, 1907, the State Government made a Reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, in respect of the question as to whether the workmen who were discharged or whose services were terminated by the Company during the period from August 1 to December 31, 1963, should be reinstated in service with all back wages and continuity - in service. It is that Order of Reference which is sought to be impugned in the present petition on certain grounds into which it is unnecessary to enter for the purpose of the present application. The Union of workmen which represented them in the Reference has been made respondent No. 2 to the present petition, and the State of Maharashtra has been made respondent No.5. None of the workmen appeared individually at the hearing of the Reference. The petitioners, however, seek to join in this petition respondents Nos. 3 and 4, who are two of the workmen discharged during the relevant period from August 1 to December 31, 1963 as representing themselves and other workmen who have been similarly discharged, and the question before me is whether leave under Order 1, rule 8 can be granted in a writ petition. As the question is of frequent occurrence and of some importance, after the argument before me was concluded, I had reserved orders in the case.

2. The first question is whether respondent No. 2- Union sufficiently represents the workmen discharged during the relevant period in the present proceedings, with the result that no leave under Order 1, rule 8 would be necessary. As far as that question is concerned, the Award of the Industrial Tribunal is not only binding on the members of the Union which has appeared before it, but also on non-members. This is clear from the provisions of subsection (3) of section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Union concerned may represent its members in proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal and the award of the Tribunal may be binding even on persons who are not members of such Union, as already stated above, but in my opinion, a Union does not represent the workmen in writ proceedings in this Court, nor would orders passed in writ proceedings by this Court be binding upon the workmen if they are not parties to it. As held by this Court in the case of Ahmedalli Abdulhusein v. Lalkaka (1) and by the Allahabad High Court in the case of K. B. Sharma v. Transport Commr., U. P., Luck. (2) persons directly affected by the relief prayed for in a petition under Article 226 must be impleaded. I am, therefore, of the view that it is necessary to make the workmen concerned parties to the present petition.

3. That leads me to the second question which arises on this application viz., whether each of the workmen discharged between August I and December 31, 1963 must individually be made a party respondent to this petition, or whether Order 1, rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to proceedings by way of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution so that any of them can, wi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1969 Supreme(Bom) 63

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY(J. R. Vimuldalal J.) RALLIS INDIA LIMITED -Petitioner v. F.H. LALA -Respondent. Advocates appearedFor petitioners-F. N. Kaka.

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(J. R. Vimuldalal J.)
RALLIS INDIA LIMITED -Petitioner
v.
F.H. LALA -Respondent.
Advocates appeared
For petitioners-F. N. Kaka.