$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5860/2005, CM APPL. 4381/2005, CM APPL. 4382/2005 CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. B.S. Rana with Mr.Deepanshu Singhal, Advs.

versus ITS WORKMAN AS REPRESENTED BY .....Respondent Through: Mr. Prabhakar Thakur for R-1 Mr. Vaibhav Kalra, Ms. Neha Bhatnagar, Mr. Arpan Lohia, Advs.

for (proposed Respondent)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

O R D E R

% 16.01.2026 CM APPL. 5522/2023

1. This Application has been moved on behalf of the Applicant under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking impleadment as Respondent No. 2 in the present case.

2. Pleadings to this application are complete.

3. Arguments heard on this application.

4. Learned counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant Suresh Kumar Ranga is a necessary party to be impleaded in this case as earlier he was General Secretary of the Container Corporation of India (CONCOR) Employees Union (Regd.) (hereinafter ‘the Union’) and had contested the reference before the ld. Labour Court.

5. It is further submitted by the ld. Counsel for the Applicant that, in the present Writ Petition, as no other counsel was appearing before this Hon’ble Court, he had been representing ‘the Union’ till 7th December, 2017, when an objection was raised regarding his authorization to appear on behalf of ‘the Union’, and therefore, he was accordingly directed to place on record the requisite authorization to represent ‘the Union’. Thereafter, vide order dated 10th October, 2022, it was observed that the Court notice issued to ‘the Union’ has been returned unserved with report ‘no such firm / company exist at the given address’. Subsequently, when the Respondent/‘the Union’ came to be represented by a counsel, in that situation the Applicant filed the present application seeking impleadment in his individual capacity as a workman, on the ground that he is a necessary and proper party to the present Writ Petition. 6. However, ld. Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner as well as for the Respondent/‘the Union’ have submitted that the Applicant is not a necessary party as he is not even a workman at present and his services were terminated way back on 23^rd November, 1998. Therefore, he is not a necessary party to be impleaded in his individual capacity in the present Writ, as the interests of the workmen are being duly represented and taken care of by the Respondent/‘the Union’ which is properly represented by Mr. Prabhakar Thakur, Advocate.

7. After considering the submissions of the ld. counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC only those parties are to be impleaded whose presence are necessary and important in disposal of the issue involved.

8. In the present case, the award has already been passed in favour of workmen who are duly represented by ‘the Union’. The Management has challenged the award, the interest of the Management is looked after by the counsel for Management representing the Management and now the Respondent/‘the Union’ is represented by counsel. Even otherwise, it is admittedly the case of the applicant that he was appearing in the present Writ Petition only on behalf of ‘the Union’ being a General Secretary of ‘the Union’ and not in his individual capacity. Once, it is the case of the applicant himself that he was appearing as a Union representative and not in his personal capacity, it cannot be said that the presence of an individual workman is required as individual workman is not considered to be a Necessary Party to an industrial dispute which is being taken up by the Union. 9. The law recognizes the ‘Principle of Collective bargaining’ and ‘the Union’ effectively represents the interest of Workmen as ‘Class’ in such proceedings.

10. Considering the same, the application of the Applicant is not found to be maintainable and is disposed of as dismissed.

W.P.(C) 5860/2005

11. The compilation of judgments has not yet