The Labour Court has the discretion to add necessary parties in adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act for effective resolution of disputes.

J U D G M E N T

At the instance of the petitioner, the following issue was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Kozhikode:

"Whether the denial of employment to Sri. Abdul Khader, S/o. Muhammed Haneefa Ravuthar, Nellisseri Parambil, Kunnappally (P.O), Malappuram District by Sri.K.K.Ashraf, Chairman, Alliance Educational Trust, Panambi, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram District is justifiable or not? If not, what are the relief he is entitled to?"

Through Ext.P12 award dated 10-01-2022, the Labour Court found that the denial of employment to the petitioner was unjustified and he has to be reinstated in service with full back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. Since no steps were taken to comply with the award, the petitioner filed CP No.18/2022 under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , which was also allowed through order dated 24-06-2022 (Ext.P13). The petitioner is now before this court stating that Ext.P12 award and Ext.P13 order cannot be executed on account of the stand taken by the opposite party/management that he was not the proper party.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proper party is the 3^rd respondent herein, and the petitioner may be permitted to continue with the proceedings against the 3^rd respondent. The notice issued by this court to the 3^rd respondent has been returned with the endorsement 'refused'. Hence service is declared as complete to the 3^rd respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the 4^th respondent submits that the 4^th respondent is not a proper party and states that Sri. K.K. Ashraf was the Director of a company, 'Aura School (Perinthalmanna) Private Limited', and he was not the Chairman of the 'Alliance Educational Trust, Panambi. It is stated that the 4^th respondent has never employed the petitioner. It is stated that on receipt of notice from the Labour Court, Sri. K.K. Ashraf had entered appearance and filed Ext.P6 affidavit before the Labour Court stating that he was not the employer of the petitioner. It is submitted that despite being informed, the petitioner did not take steps to implead the proper party before the Labour Court. It is pointed out that in proceedings for execution of the award in I.D No.52/2017, the District Labour Officer, Malappuram, has found that Sri. K.K. Ashraf has no connection whatsoever with Alliance Educational Trust.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government may be directed to pass a fresh order of reference treating the 3^rd respondent herein as the employer of the petitioner.

5. The learned Government Pleader has placed for my consideration a judgment of the Supreme Court in Globe Ground India Employees Union v. Lufthansa German Airlines and another, (2019) 15 SCC 273 and points out that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has made it clear that the Labour Court is empowered to add proper and necessary parties to the proceedings before the Labour Court even in the case where the dispute has referred for adjudication of the Labour Court.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent, and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 5^th respondent, I am of the opinion that since the Labour Court had proceeded to adjudicate the matter without the proper party on the array of parties, the matter has to be restored to the file of the Labour Court for fresh adjudication with the proper party on the array of parties.

7. In Globe Ground (India) Employees Union (supra), it was held:-

“10. Whenever, an application is filed in the adjudication proceedings, either before the Industrial Tribunal