9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (4) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents, but also to the Deputy General Manager of M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. This was so done apparently because a copy of the notification of the Government of Orissa containing the order of reference had been served on the said Dy. General Manager. After the notice issued by the Tribunal was received by the Dy. General Manager of the Hindustan Steel Ltd. he appeared before the Tribunal and urged that the Hindustan Steel Ltd. was not concerned or interested in the dispute and should not be added as a party to the reference. 2. Meanwhile, the appellant made an application to the Tribunal on the 21st March, 1961 and contended that the interests of M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. and the appellant were common in the proceedings pending before the Tribunal, and so, M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. should be joined as a party. In this application, the appellant alleged that M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. was a necessary party, because the material documents which may have to be proved in the proceedings were with the said concern and, in fact, the enquiry in question would not be complete without the said concern being joined as party. The Tribunal then considered the question of joining M/s. Hindustan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst question which we have to consider is, did s. 18(b), as it then stood, postulate an implied power in the Tribunal to add persons as parties to the proceedings who are other than those who were parties to the industrial dispute ? It will be noticed that clause (a) refers to all parties to the industrial dispute, whereas clause (b) refers to all other parties summoned to appear. The word other seems to suggest that the parties summoned to appear to whom clause (b) refers are not identical with the parties to the industrial dispute specified by clause (a). Section 2(k) of the Act defines an 'industrial dispute', inter alia, as meaning any dispute or difference between employers and workmen; so that parties to the industrial dispute under clause (a) would mean persons between whom the dispute has arisen as prescribed by s. 2(k), and so, clause (b) contemplates persons other than those who are actually and directly involved in the dispute which is the subject-matter of reference under section 10. Thus, s. 18(b) seems to contemplate that persons other than parties to the industrial dispute may be summoned before the Tribunal. 6. That takes us to the question as to who ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trial dispute, came to the conclusion that persons other than those mentioned as parties to the industrial dispute were necessary for a valid determination of the said dispute, it had the power to summon them; and if such persons were summoned to appear in the proceedings, the award that the Industrial Tribunal may ultimately pronounce would be binding on them. Since in cases where persons were added as parties to an industrial dispute were likely to raise the question as to whether the joinder of the parties was justified or not, s. 18(b) required that the Tribunal should record its opinion as to whether these persons had been summoned without proper cause. Thus, we are inclined to take the view that Mr. Chatterjee is right in contending that s. 18(b) as it originally stood, postulates that the Tribunal had an implied power to summon parties, other than parties to the industrial dispute, to appear in the proceedings before it. That naturally raises the question about the extent of this power. 9. In dealing with this question, it is necessary to bear in mind one essential fact, and that is that the Industrial Tribunal is a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction. Its jurisdiction is to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch would be affected by, or interested in, such a dispute, the appropriate Government may add them to the said reference either at the time when the reference is initially made, or during the pendency of the said reference proceedings; but in every case, such additions can be made before the award is submitted. Now, if such persons are added to the reference, the industrial Tribunal may in exercise of its powers under s. 18(3)(b) summon them to appear before it. 12. Section 18(b) with which we began, has also been amended by Act 36 of 1956, and it has now been renumbered. As a result, s. 18(b) is now included in s. 18(3)(b). Section 18(3) provides, inter alia, that an award passed by an Industrial Tribunal which has become enforceable shall be binding on : (a) all parties to the industrial disputes; (b) all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute, unless the Tribunal records the opinion that they were so called without proper cause. 13. The material words in s. 18(3)(b) are the same as they were originally included in s. 18(b), and so, the implied power which could be exercised by the Industrial Tribunal under s. 18(b) can now be ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch of the said High Court has held that s. 18(b) by necessary implication gives power to the Tribunal to add parties. It can add necessary or proper party. He need not be the employer or the employee. In that particular case, the party added was the Receiver and it was found that unless the Receiver was added as a party to the reference proceedings, the adjudication itself would become ineffective. In the words used by the judgment, the party added was not a rank outsider or a disinterested spectator, but was a Receiver who was vitally concerned with the proceedings before the Tribunal and whose presence was necessary to make the ultimate award effective, valid and enforceable. 16. In Radhakrishna Mills Ltd. Peelamedu, Coimbatore Dt. v. The Special Industrial Tribunal, Madras Ors. A.I.R. 1954 Mad. 606 a single Judge of the Madras High Court followed the earlier decision, though in this case, a party that was summoned by the Tribunal had been added to the reference by the State Government under s. 10(5) of the Act. 17. In Anil Kumar Upadhaya v. V. P. K. Sarkar Ors. MANU/WB/0011/1961 : (1961)IILLJ459Cal , a learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court has accepted the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pute between the appellant and its alleged principal and such a dispute would be wholly foreign to the industrial dispute which has been referred to the Tribunal for its adjudication. 19. The next contention raised by Mr. Chatterjee is that M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. is a necessary party because it is the said concern which is the employer of the respondents and not the appellant. In other words, this contention is that though in form the appellant engaged the workmen whom the respondent union represents, the appellant was acting as the agent of its principal and for adjudicating upon the industrial dispute referred to the Tribunal by the State of Orissa, it is necessary that the principal, viz., M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. ought to be added as a party. In dealing with this argument, it is necessary to bear in mind the fact that the appellant does not dispute the respondent Union's case that the workmen were employed by the appellant. It would have been open to the State Government to ask the Tribunal to consider who was the employer of these workmen and in that case, the terms of reference might have been suitably framed. Where the appropriate Government desires that the quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
