The main legal point established in the judgment is that the addition of parties to an industrial dispute reference should only be allowed if it is necessary to make the adjudication effective and enforceable.

JUDGMENT

Arindam Sinha, J. - Mr. Palit, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioners. He submits, his clients are similarly situate, as those who raised industrial dispute and the appropriate government made reference dated 7th November, 2016. He submits, impugned is order dated 10th October, 2022, by which his clients' application for being added as parties in the reference, was rejected. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. K.V. Shramik Sangh, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 609, paragraph-29.

2. Mr. Babu, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State.

3. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party nos.8 to 11. He submits, petitioners neither were nor are similarly situate with his clients. He draws attention to the schedule of reference. We reproduce it below.

'SCHEDULE

'Whether S/Sri Mukunda Chandra Mohanty, Golekh Chandra Jena, Amar Kumar Roul and Jagadish Mohapatra, contract labourers of the outgoing contractor M/s-Kirtiman Transport (a contractor establishment of M/s-OSWAL chemicals and fertilizers Ltd., Paradeep) are entitled for re-employment under the incoming new contractor, namely M/s-Kalinga Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. (a contractor establishment of M/s-IFFCO Ltd. Paradeep) like their other co-workmen? If so, what should be the manner of relief ?'

(emphasis supplied)

He submits further, provision in sub-section (4) of section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not permit addition of parties considering the schedule of reference regarding the industrial dispute raised by his clients. His clients have been specifically named in the schedule and hence, addition will result in the Labour Court being unable to confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental to the schedule, specifying the points of disputes for adjudication.

4. On query from Court regarding existence of provision in the Act for addition of parties to a reference, Mr. Nayak, learned advocate present in Court submits, the Supreme Court in Hochtief Gammon v. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1746 had considered the question. Mr. Nayak is appointed Amicus Curiae to assist in the adjudication.

5. The Labour Court, by impugned order, was not inclined to implead/add petitioners as interveners/parties to the case before it. As such, petition dated 18th May, 2022, of petitioners filed in the Labour Court, was rejected. We reproduce a paragraph from impugned order.

'After thorough discussion of the rival contentions of the present petitioners, so also the second party workmen and management Nos.1, 3 and 5, this Court is of the humble opinion that new parties should not be added to this case as it is a case registered in this Court being the outcome of a reference made by the appropriate Govt.. This Court should not travel beyond the schedule of reference. This Court should also not change the constitution of reference made by the State Govt. by allowing the present petitioners as parties at such a belated stage though there is no such bar under order 1 rule 10 CPC. The present interveners, if so advised, may approach the proper forum to ventilate their grievances under the ID Act. That apart, in many cases it is held by the Hon'ble Courts that new party would not be added by the State Govt. to the reference already made by it although it is open to the state Govt. to make additional reference to the same Court/Tribunal in respect of those workmen/interveners/petitioners so that both references would be considered together.'

(emphasis supplied)

6. In K.V. Shramik Sangh (supra) the Supreme Court did provide for contingency of the union before it to move the appropriate government or the industrial adjudicator, within four weeks, for their prayer to be considered and for passing appropriate order. We reproduce a passage from relied upon parapgrarh-29.

'29. In the result, for the reasons stated and discussion made above, the