The main legal point established in the judgment is that technicalities such as non-impleadment of parties and misjoinder of parties may not be fatal to a petition, and the court must consider the provisions of relevant laws, such as Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

( 1 ) PRELIMINARY objection is raised by respondents that petitioner has not filed the certified copy of the impugned order and has not arrayed Labour Court as a party, therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of rules framed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. After objection was raised certified copy of the order passed by the Industrial Court is filed by the petitioner.

( 2 ) IT is true that in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India it is essential that party must file the certified copy of the impugned order. Petition was filed in the year 1997 and certified copy was not filed. When objection was raised petitioner immediately filed the copy on record. Since copy is received on record it will not be appropriate to dismiss the petition on this ground. As regards non-impleading the Labour Court is concerned, this aspect is to be examined on its merits. Petitioner has referred to the judgment in the case of Munshi Naziruddin v. P. S. Lawale, member, Board of Revenue and others, 1955 nlj 732. In this case it is held that the order of primary authority which is confirmed by appellate authority then primary authority should also be impleaded. It has held in para 4 that primary authority should be impleaded even if appellate authority has affirmed its order. In this case it is held that the judgment of the Revenue Court at the earlier stage, that is to say, of the Deputy Commissioner, has not been put in, nor has he been impleaded in these proceedings, but that is only a technical matter. In this case it has been held that it is only a technical matter and it is further directed that the mater be referred only to bring to the notice of the litigants that if they wish a certain order to be quashed, it is necessary to implead not only the appellate authority but the primary authority also, even though it may be a judgment of affirmance.

( 3 ) IN the case of Udit Narain Singh v. Additional Member Board of Revenue and others, reported in AIR 1963 SC 786, question of necessary and proper parties was considered in the matter of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this case it is held that in a writ of certiorari not only the Tribunal or authority whose order is sought to be quashed but also parties in whose favour the said order is issued are necessary parties. But it is in the discretion of the Court to add or implead proper parties for completely settling all the questions that may be involved in the controversy either suo motu or on the application of a party to the writ or an application filed at the instance of such proper party. This petition relates to writ in the nature of Certiorari.

( 4 ) IN the case of M. A. Qureshi v. State of madhya Pradesh and others, reported in 1978 jlj 675, Division Bench has held that misjoinder of parties may be a defect but not fatal. In the case of Jamuna Prasad v. Bhaiyalal, reported in 1979 (1)MP Weekly Note No. 231, it is held that under Article 226 necessary parties are all authorities and Tribunals who pronounced orders against petitioner and they were not impleaded properly.

( 5 ) IN the case of Ram Sewak v. Bhagwat sahai, reported in 1979 (1) MP Weekly Note no. 238, it is held that none of the Tribunals whose orders are sought to be challenged were impleaded as parties, it is held that petition was not tenable. Considering the different judgments and the earlier judgment in case of munshi Naziruddin (supra) it is held that the defect of non- impleadment is only a technicality and the Division Bench in the case of M. A. Qureshi (supra) held that misjoinder of parties is not fatal. In the case of Uditnarain singh (supra) Apex Court while considering the scope of Full Bench judgment has considered the scope of Full Bench judgment of Nagpur High Court in the case of kanglu Baula Kotwal and another v. Chief Executive officer, AIR 1955 Nagpur 49. In this case persons who were elected from various constituen