IMPORTANT POINT
The presence of M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company as a party was essential for effective adjudication and complete decision of the questions involved in the reference case.

JUDGMENT :

This writ petition has been filed for the following relief :

“For issuance of direction upon the concerned Respondents to reinstate in services of nine (9) persons namely (1) Dashrath Kamat (2) Gopal Prasad, (3) Sri Jawahar, (4) Jadav Nath, (5) Shiv Lal, (6) Nibas Ghosh (7) Vishnu Kumar Kamat, (8) Krishna Deo Mahto and (9) Jagdish Kamat as per the Charter of Demands made before the General Manager M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. Jamshedpur 831010 (Annexure-4) and to quash the order dated 24.08.1994 (Annexure-6) which is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction as well as beyond eth scope and ambit of Reference (Annexure-3).”

2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner while explaining the reasons for delay in challenging the impugned order dated 24.08.1994 in W.P.(L). No.6385 of 2018 has submitted that the learned court below did not proceed in the matter after passing of the impugned order. The learned counsel has submitted that the person who was impleaded as a party to the proceedings vide impugned order dated 24.08.1994 filed a petition on 30.10.2018 to disqualify and debar the Telco Canteen Employees Union to participate in the present proceedings. He has also submitted that the petitioner had moved this Court earlier in W.P.(L). No.3420 of 2009 wherein the petitioner had confined his prayer with respect to the direction upon the respondent authorities to expedite the matter pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi as reference was made in the year 1993 itself and in the final order dated 12.01.2021 passed in the writ petition, a direction was passed by this Court to expedite the matter preferable within 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

3. The learned counsel submits that though the order impugned is dated 24.08.1994, but the matter remained pending and not much water having flown, no prejudice has been caused by delay in approaching this Court.

4. On the merit of the case, the learned counsel has submitted that the relief is primarily against the respondent no.2-company and the dispute is between the petitioner and the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 is already under legal obligation under the Factories Act to maintain the canteen and therefore even if any agent has been employed by the respondent-company, the same has no bearing in the matter and the persons employed in the canteen are to be treated as employees of the respondent no.2. The learned counsel submits that therefore the so-called agent in the canteen namely H.N. Parikh and Company has no role to play and therefore the impugned order making respondent no.4 as party to the proceedings calls for interference by this Court.

5. The learned senior counsel has further referred to the order dated 10.12.1993 wherein the petition of the management dated 12.08.1993 making a prayer to implead M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company as necessary party to the reference was rejected by stating that M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company cannot be said to be necessary party in the reference because M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company will not be affected by the award to be given in the reference. The learned counsel submits that once the order dated 10.12.1993 was passed rejecting the petition of the Management wherein it was pleaded that M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company is a necessary party in the proceedings, the same could not have been reviewed by the learned court below while passing the impugned order dated 24.08.1994.

6. He submits that by the impugned order dated 24.08.1994, the prayer made on behalf of M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company for impleading it as a necessary party in the case was allowed and thereafter, vide order dated 16.09.1994, M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company was asked to file written statement. Learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, M/s. H.N. Parikh and Company is neither a necessary party nor a proper party nor any relief has been claimed by the petitioner against M/s. H.N. Parikh and C