SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Raj) 2374

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
M/s Laxmiprakash Garments Pvt. Ltd, through its Director Mr. Prakash Chand Manghrani S/o Late Shri Mool Chand Manghrani - Petitioner 
Versus 
Bajrang Singh Rathore, S/o Bhanwar Singh Rathore and Anr. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13968 of 2024 
Decided On : 21-09-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prath Pareek, Mr. Vaibhav Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Dharmendra Jain with Mr. Arvind Kumar Arora & Ms. Tanushree Kumawat.

The Labour Court has the authority to implead necessary parties for effective adjudication of industrial disputes, particularly regarding liability in cases of insolvency.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 18 - Writ petition challenging the Labour Court's order allowing the impleadment of the petitioner-Company in an ongoing industrial dispute - The petitioner-Company argued it had no connection with the respondent-Company, having only purchased land - The Labour Court found the petitioner-Company necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute, citing the need to determine liability in case of an award in favor of the workman. (Paras 2, 6, 10, 17)

(B) Necessary Party - The court emphasized that the Labour Court has the authority to add parties for complete adjudication, especially when the presence of such parties is essential to resolve the dispute effectively. (Paras 8, 10)

(C) Precedent - The court referred to previous judgments establishing that a purchaser of an industrial concern may be considered a successor-in-interest depending on various factors, including the nature of the business and continuity. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner-Company challenged the Labour Court's decision to implead it in a dispute between the respondent-Company and the workman, arguing it had no liability as it only purchased land. The Labour Court found it necessary to determine potential liability in light of the respondent-Company's insolvency proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The Labour Court's decision to implead the petitioner-Company was upheld, emphasizing the need for complete adjudication of the industrial dispute.

Issues: Whether the petitioner-Company can be impleaded as a party in the ongoing industrial dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Labour Court has the authority to add necessary parties for effective adjudication, and the petitioner-Company's involvement is essential to determine liability in case of an award.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Order :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

For convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts: -

INDEX
(1)Details of Writ Petition
(2) Factual Matrix and Submissions
(3)Analysis
(4) Judgments Referred
(5) Observations
(6)Conclusion
(7)Additional Directions

Details of the Writ Petition:

1. By way of filing of this writ petition, the challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the Labour Court-I, Jaipur in LCC Case No.01/2000 by which the application filed by the respondent-workman under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading the petitioner as party has been allowed.

Factual Matrix and Submissions:

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-Company has no concern whatsoever with the M/s Autopal Industries Limited (for short “respondent-Company”). Counsel submits that an industrial dispute is lying pending between the said Company and the respondent-workman. Counsel submits that a piece of land was sold by respondent-Company M/s Autopal Industries Limited to the petitioner-Company vide registered sale deed dated 10.10.2019. Counsel submits that simply on the basis of the said sale deed, the petitioner-Company cannot be impleaded as party to the lis pending between the respondent-workman and respondent- Company M/s Autopal Industries Limited. Counsel submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the rights and liabilities of M/s Autopal Industries Limited, as he has simply purchased a piece of land and on that basis no liability of M/s Autopal Industries Limited can be fastened upon the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is neither necessary nor proper party to the matter pending before the Labour Court. Counsel submits that this objection was taken by the petitioner before the Labour Court, but the Labour Court by misinterpreting the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Arafat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s J.K. Staff Association, Kota and Anr. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.12663/2018) dated 08.08.2019, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that the petitioner is a necessary party and accordingly the petitioner has been impleaded as party. Counsel submits that the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Arafat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as in the aforesaid matter, there was a tripartite agreement between M/s Arafat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. and M/s J.K. Staff Association, but in the instant case, no such tripartie agreement has been executed between the respondents and the petitioner-Company is free from all kinds of liabilities and encumbrances against the respondent-workman and the respondent-Company M/s Autopal Industries Limited. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted and the impugned order dated 29.05.2024 is liable to be quashed and set aside.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- workman opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner-Company and submitted that the services of the respondent-workman were illegally terminated by the erstwhile respondent-Company i.e. M/s Autopal Industries Limited and more than 40 litigations of workmen are pending against the respondent-Company M/s Autopal Industries Limited before the Labour Court. Counsel submits that in order to escape from its liability, certain part of the property was sold by the respondent-Company M/s Autopal Industries Limited to the petitioner-Company, by executing a registered sale deed on 10.10.2019. Counsel submits that after receiving the consideration amount from the petitioner, the erstwhile employer i.e. M/s Autopal Industries Limited (respondent-Company) approached the National Company Law Tribunal (for short “NCLT”) for declaring it as “insolvent”. Counsel submits that the aforesaid action of the respondent-Company makes it li

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top