9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 1060X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 1.2.1994 on the application made by the complainant Union to implead the said Respondents, who are the Petitioners in the present Petition. Since the petitioners were not heard before they were impleaded as respondents in the complaint they filed an application before the Industrial Court to discharge them from the complaint as they were neither necessary nor proper party in the complaint. The Industrial Court however by its order dated 7.8.1995 refused to discharge them on some curious ground and curious logic that the order impleading them in the complaint should have been challenged by them in the High Court and that they should not have filed the said application before that Court to get themselves discharged from the complaint. 2. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders of the Industrial Court. Shri Kamdar, the learned counsel for the Petitioners has furnished the following dates and events of the checkered history of the present litigation. (1) 19.10.1961 The Lease was executed in favour of S. R. Salvi for a period of 10 years with an option to renew. (2) 17.4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i in collusion with (he workers, by the office of the Collector of Bombay and the police In alleged Implementation of the said order dated 5.3.1985. (9) 18.1.1991 The appeal preferred by Salvi from the order directing restitution of possession to the petitioners was dismissed. (10) 20.2.1991 Order in Notice of Motion No. 509 of 1991 taken out by the Petitioners by which the Court Receiver was directed by the Division Bench to give possession of the said premises to the petitioners on or before 21.2.1991. (11) 27.7.1992 Order of the Division Bench in Appeal No. 1 96 of 1 99 1 directing that the order dated 15.2.1991 passed in Pauper Petition No. 2 of 1991 in favour of Salvi be vacated and the Court Receiver as Receiver in the Suit filed by the Bank of Maharashtra against Salvi for recovery of its dues was directed to remove the machineries hypothecated to the Bank within four weeks. (12) 22.9.1992 Special Leave Petition filed by Salvi from the order dated 27.7.1992 of the Di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ern with the business of the said M/s. Salvi Super. There is also no dispute that the Petitioners were not the employers of the employees employed by the said M/s. Salvi Super and still the petitioners were dragged in the complaint of unfair labour practice filed by the Respondent No. 1 Union before me to implead the Petitioners as necessary and proper party. 4. In the application filed by the Union to implead the Petitioners there is not even a whisper of reason or ground why they were sought to be impleaded as necessary or proper party. It is only averred that there was a litigation in respect of the lease agreement between the petitioners and the said M/s. Salvi Super, the Lessee of the premises, and that the Lessee has finally lost in the litigation upto the Supreme Court and that the Lessee has handed over the said premises to the Lessors, the Petitioners in the present Petition. It is only averred that to bring the logical end to this complaint the following persons are necessary to be impleaded as party in the present complaint. It is not even averred in the said application that Petitioners were either necessary or proper party. I am rather surprised how even without i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent No. 1 M/s. Salvi Super, the admitted employer of the workmen, represented by the Union. The learned member of the Industrial Court also lost sight of the fact that there was no whisper or an iota of allegation of unfair labour practice against the petitioners in the entire complaint and even in the application filed by the Union to implead the petitioners there was no mention in what way the petitioners had engaged in any unfair labour practice alleged against the said M/s. Salvi Super. I have already stated that there is not even a ghost of averment anywhere in the application how the petitioners were necessary or proper party to be impleaded in the complaint. Further in my considered opinion merely because the Petitioners were the Lessors as the owners of the properly where the Lessee was conducting his own independent business can be said to be a necessary or proper party in the litigation between the employer and the employees in respect of their service conditions and in respect of the labour dispute between them unless it is specifically pointed out that the proposed respondents had any share or responsibility of any nature in the business of the Lessee. I am not prepare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Super and the Bank of Maharashtra a Court Receiver was appointed for the plant and machinery and under the orders of the Court the Court Receiver had taken away plant and machinery for the benefit of the said Bank of Maharashtra. Since the Petitioners were not the owners of the business and they were not even the owners of the plant and machinery and they were not employer of the employees represented by the Union and there is absolutely no allegation or averment of any nature against the petitioners the Petitioners were unnecessarily dragged in the litigation and were impleaded as the Respondents in the complaint before the Industrial Court. In my opinion both the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside being totally illegal, improper and unjust. The Respondent No. 1 Union in the above Petition has deliberately impleaded the petitioners in the said complaint of unfair labour practice with a view to harass them for the reasons best known to them. Such tendency of the parties need to be curbed and curtailed, as no party can be dragged in any litigation for the pleasure of the party in charge of the litigation. On the top of this it was submitted on behalf of the Union ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
