Necessary party impleadment in labour complaints requires a legal basis; mere lessor status is insufficient.

Mere ownership of leased premises does not make lessors employers or responsible for an unfair labour practice allegedly committed by the lessee's business. Where the complaint was directed only against the employer-tenant and contained no substantive averment against the lessors, there was no legal foundation to implead them as necessary or proper parties. An ex parte impleadment without notice, followed by refusal to discharge them on the basis that they must remain until final trial, was unsustainable. A party cannot be forced to face litigation absent a reasoned basis showing its necessary joinder to the complaint.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners, being only lessors and not employers of the workmen, were necessary or proper parties to the unfair labour practice complaint and whether the orders impleading them and refusing to discharge them were sustainable.

Analysis: The complaint was directed against the employer-tenant alone and contained no substantive averment showing any unfair labour practice by the petitioners. Mere ownership of the premises did not make the lessors responsible for the acts and omissions of the lessee's business, nor did it make them employers of the workmen. The impleadment application also gave no reasoned basis for treating them as necessary or proper parties. The ex parte impleadment was made without notice and the later refusal to discharge them rested on an unsound premise that they had to remain in the proceedings until the complaint was finally tried. A party cannot be compelled to undergo litigation when no legal foundation for its impleadment is shown.

Conclusion: The impleadment and refusal to discharge the petitioners were illegal and were set aside; the petitioners were held not to be necessary or proper parties to the complaint.

---