AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (3) TMI 1060
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts in the year 1994 being necessary and proper party to the complaint. By an order 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)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ners 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 Division Bench in Appeal No. 196 of 1991 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of restoration of possession to the petitioners as landlords was confirmed. (13) 12.6.1994 Consent Terms filed In Pauper Petition No. 2 of 1991 entered into by which Salvi confirmed that the Petitioners were the owners and in possession thereof. In pursuance of a valid surrender of tenancy rights and that he had no interest in the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 issuing a show cause notice to the proposed respondents as to why they should not be impleaded in the complaint the Industrial Court passed an exparte order against the petitioners to implead them in the complaint by the impugned order dated 1.2.1994. The learned Members of the Industrial Court has only given the following reason to implead the petitioners in paragraph 9 of his judgment, which reads as under: "9. Suffice to state that in order to decide the controversy in these two old complaints, it is necessary that the party now in possession of the property, and the party now intending to run the business there, and the party now declared to be the real owner of the property and business must be join....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cause 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 prepared to hold a view as canvassed by Shri Ganguli that as the owners of the property the petitioners were necessary and proper party. Shri Ganguli has not pointed out even a single word from the entire proceedings to show that the petitioners were necessary and proper party in the complaint of unfair labour practice which is maintainable against the employers only. The Union has not been able to establish or show or even averred anywhere any ground to substantiate its plea to implead the petitioners as necessary or proper party. I am further not able to appreciate the submissions of Shri Ganguli that the complaint of unfair labour practice is still pending before the Industrial Court and the question of the peti....