JUDGMENT :

A.S. Supehia, J.

1. RULE. Learned advocates appear and waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. A short issue is involved in both the present writ petitions whether the order passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad dated 15.03.2021 in Reference (IT) Nos. 29 of 2019 and 26 of 2019 relegating the present petitioner to file an application or avail the efficacious adjudication of the dispute under Section 10(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the "I.D. Act"), is legal or not.

3. The facts which are not disputed by either of the parties is that the petitioner is a registered Union, who initiated the references for the claim of a particular pay-scale.

4. The conciliation proceedings were initiated, which culminated into Reference (IT) Nos. 29 of 2019 and 26 of 2019. During the pendency of the references, the petitioner-Union, when they came to know that in fact the respondent No. 1 is a grant-in-aid institute receiving 100% grant from the State Government, it made an application to join the State Government as a respondent in the pending reference, as per the provisions of Section 18 of the I.D. Act.

5. By the impugned order, the Industrial Court has directed the present petitioner to file an application under Section 10(5) of the I.D. Act.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Shah, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in fact, under the provisions of Section 18(3)(b) of the I.D. Act, the Industrial Court should have directly added the State Government, as a party respondent since the Institute is a fully grant-in-aid institute and conferment of the pay-scale depends upon sanction of the State Government and until and unless such grant-in-aid is released to the respondent-Institute, the petitioner would not got the pay-scale. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of High Court in the case of Hotchtief Gammon v. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa and Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1746. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned orders may be set aside.

7. In response to the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavati, has submitted that no interference is required in the order passed by the Industrial Court. However, it is not denied by him that in fact the respondent-Institute is a fully grant-in-aid institute and the State Government would be a necessary party, so that the industrial dispute can be adjudicated. He has submitted that the very same judgment, on which reliance is placed by learned advocate Mr. Shah, holds that for addition of any parties, an application under Sections 10(4) and 10(5) of the I.D. Act, is required to be made and the Industrial Court has no power to add or issue summon, to any parties under section 18(3)(b) of the I.D. Act, which are not parties to the reference proceedings.

8. Thus, it is submitted that the order may not be disturbed and it is always open for the petitioner to file an application under Section 10(5) of the I.D. Act, as ordered by the Industrial Court.

9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mehta, has also adopted the arguments advanced by the learned senior advocate. However, he has further submitted that right from the beginning, the petitioner-Union was aware that the respondent-Institute is grant-in-aid hospital and that was within their knowledge, however they did not make efforts to join the State Health and Welfare Department as a party respondent and hence, the only option is left with them to file an application under Section 10(5) of the I.D. Act.

10. I have heard the learned advocates for respective parties to the lis. I have also perused the relevant documents.

11. As stated hereinabove, the issue raised in the writ petition is in a narrow-compass. The issue is whether the order passed by the Industrial Court relegating the present petitioner for availing the remedy under Section 10(5) of the I.D. Act, is just and proper or the In