Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh vs Empress Mills Unit of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2007 Supreme(Bom) 960

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
A.H. JOSHI & R.C. CHAVAN, JJ.
Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh — Appellant
Versus
Empress Mills Unit of Maharashtra —Respondents
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NOS. 7,8/2007
IN
WRIT PETITION NO: 2059,1842/1996
Decided on : 17/07/ 2007.
Advocates appeared :
Mr. S.D. Thakur, Adv. for appellants, in both the matters
Mr. R.B. Puranik, Adv. for Respondent No.1 - caveator in both the matters:

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order I, Rule 10 - Necessary party - Impleadment of - Person see- king to be impleaded must have a right or interest in subject-matter lis - Land acquisition matter - Acquiring body have direct interest in matter - A necessary party - Deserves to be impleaded. - The test would be whether a person seeking to be impleaded has a right or interest in the subject-matter lis which is being tried. If the answer be in affirmative, such person is a necessary party.
However, if one goes to the root to find out as to what was the cause of permitting the acquiring body to be impleaded is not because the case was coming under the Land Acquisition Act but ultimate liability on account of enhancement of compensation was going to be fastened to and/or passed on the acquiring body without its being heard against the ground on which the enhancement is being sought. Thus, acquiring body has direct interest in the matter and was a necessary party.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order I, Rule 10(2) - Necessary party. - If a person seeking to be implead has a right or interest in subject-matter lis which is being tried, such person is a necessary party.

ORAL JUDGEMENT: [Per JOSHI, J.,]

1. The appellant in both the Appeals is the original applicant who had filed application under section 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, claiming a declaration that the employer, as it then was, namely, Central India Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Company Limited has effected certain illegal change.

2. During pendency of the said BIR Application, the Textile Unit was taken over by the State, under the provisions of the Central India Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Company Limited, Empress Mills Nagpur (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). During pendency of application, present Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”) filed application for intervention on 25.10.1991.

3. In the application dated 25.10.991, the applicant – Corporation (present Respondent No.1) averred as follows

“2. That, under the provisions of Nationalization act, the Commissioner of Payments has been appointed to decide the liability of the erstwhile management. That, about 7,000 employees of the erstwhile management have filed claims before the commissioner of Payments, wherein they have, among other things, claimed wages for the period the erstwhile management had declared lockout. That, under Section 25 of the Act, the liability of the erstwhile management in category I, if any, discharged by the Commissioner of Payments, may be assumed by the State Government and the State Government direct the applicant -Corporation to take over the liability. It is submitted that considering the limited amount presently available with the Commissioner for disbursement, in case it is held that the employees are entitled to claim wages for the lockout period, such liability may remain undischarged out of the payments made to the Commissioner. That, in such eventuality, this applicant may be called upon as to assume liability in that respect. Thus the applicant has considerable stake in the present proceeding and this applicant may be affected by the outcome of the present proceedings. The applicant, therefore, wants to intervene in the matter and to oppose the application filed by the applicant Union.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, it would be in the interest of justice to permit this applicant to intervene in the matter and to participate in the proceedings.”

(Quotation is copied from Page Nos. 61 & 62 of Paper book of LPA No. 7/2007) Based on the above-quoted averments, the Corporation prayed for being impleaded as party in both applications. The Applications for intervention filed both cases were opposed by Union, on the ground of 'locus standi.

The Labour Court rejected the application by order dated 23.12.1993. 4. The Corporation who was aggrieved by order dated 23.12.1993 rejecting application for intervention preferred Revision Applications, which were registered as Rev. (BIR) Nos.2 and 3 of 1984 before the Industrial Court, Nagpur, which were rejected by the Industrial Court by common order dated 16.11.1994. In the reasoning, the Industrial Court observed as follows :

“14. .........................If this provision of section 17 is read together with section 25, it would be clear that the wages towards illegal lockout and illegal closure even if it would be held as proved by the Labour Court, the liability of the same will not be on the state government or even on the revision applicant as for such claim of wages towards illegal closure and illegal lockout cannot be made before the Commissioner of Payments.”

(Quotation is copied from Page 90 of the Paper book of LPA No: 7/2007)

5. It seems that after the Industrial Court confirmed the order of rejection of prayer for intervention, the Labour Court proceeded to hear and decide BIR application Nos. 38 and 45 both of 1986 by judgment and order dated 28.2.1995. The Labour Court allowed both the applications ex-parte as the Corporation who was running the Text

Click Here to Read the rest of this document