2001 (3) TMI 1060 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Impleading of the Petitioners as Respondents in the complaint.
2. Legitimacy of the Industrial Court's orders dated 1.2.1994 and 7.8.1995.
3. Petitioners' involvement and liability in the unfair labour practice complaint.
4. Procedural correctness of the Petitioners' approach to challenge the impleading order.

Issue-wise detailed analysis:

1. Impleading of the Petitioners as Respondents in the complaint:
The petitioners were impleaded as respondents in a complaint filed by the Respondent No. 1 Union under Section 28 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, against M/s. Salvi Super. The petitioners contended that they were neither necessary nor proper parties to the complaint. The Industrial Court, however, refused to discharge them, asserting that the petitioners should have challenged the impleading order in the High Court instead of filing an application before the Industrial Court.

2. Legitimacy of the Industrial Court's orders dated 1.2.1994 and 7.8.1995:
The petitioners challenged two orders of the Industrial Court: the ex-parte order dated 1.2.1994 that impleaded them as respondents and the order dated 7.8.1995 that refused to discharge them. The court found that the Industrial Court's decision to implead the petitioners without issuing a show-cause notice was improper. The Industrial Court's reasoning that the party in possession of the property must be joined was deemed insufficient. The court held that merely being the lessor of the property did not make the petitioners liable for the acts of the lessee, M/s. Salvi Super, or responsible for the employees' claims.

3. Petitioners' involvement and liability in the unfair labour practice complaint:
The court noted that the petitioners were the owners of the land and structure leased to M/s. Salvi Super, which was the actual employer of the workmen. There was no allegation or evidence against the petitioners regarding unfair labour practices. The court emphasized that the lessor of a property does not become the employer of the lessee's employees and is not responsible for the lessee's business operations. The court found that the petitioners were wrongly impleaded in the complaint and that there was no basis for their involvement in the unfair labour practice allegations against M/s. Salvi Super.

4. Procedural correctness of the Petitioners' approach to challenge the impleading order:
The court upheld the petitioners' approach of first seeking discharge from the Industrial Court before approaching the High Court. It rejected the argument that the petitioners should have directly challenged the impleading order in the High Court. The court found that the petitioners had followed the correct procedure and had rightly approached the Industrial Court to vacate the ex-parte order.

Conclusion:
The court quashed and set aside both impugned orders of the Industrial Court, deeming them illegal, improper, and unjust. The court held that the petitioners were unnecessarily dragged into the litigation and should not be compelled to continue in the proceedings. The complaint could continue against M/s. Salvi Super only. The court allowed the petition and awarded costs of Rs. 10,000 to the petitioners, to be paid by the Respondent No. 1 Union.