E.Ashwathama Reddy & Ors. vs RTC Telangana Mazdoor Union & Ors.

The present Writ Appeal (SR) is preferred against the order dated 01.07.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.2 of 2026 in W.P.No.9996 of 2026, whereby the application filed by the appellants herein seeking their impleadment as respondents in the said Writ Petition came to be dismissed.

The matter arises out of the objections raised by the Registry on 25.07.2026 to the presentation of the aforesaid Writ Appeal. The objections raised by the Registry are as follows:

The learned counsel for the appellant represented the above W.A (SR) on 28.07.2026 with the following endorsement:

The matter has been placed before this Court for orders on maintainability.

We have heard Sri V.Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Kadire Ajith Reddy, learned counsel for appellants; Sri S.Maneesh Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation for respondent Nos.2 and 4; Ms.K.V.Vani, learned counsel representing Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.5; and Sri T.Venkat Raj Goud, learned Government Pleader for Labour for respondent No.6 and perused the documents placed on record.

The appellants herein, who were the proposed respondent Nos.6 to 8 in W.P. No.9996 of 2026, filed I.A. No.2 of 2026 seeking their impleadment as respondents in the said Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was filed by respondent No.1-RTC Telangana Mazdoor Union seeking a direction to the respondent-Bank to permit its authorised signatories to operate the Union’s bank account and to permit the authorised signatories to manage its financial affairs with the Cooperative Society.

The learned Single Judge, by order dated 01.07.2026, dismissed the implead petition, holding that the proposed parties had failed to establish any subsisting locus to participate in the affairs of the Union. The learned Single Judge took note of the order dated 04.10.2022 passed by the Additional Registrar of Trade Unions, whereby the group headed by M.Thomas Reddy was recognised as the elected body of the Union, and observed that the said order continues to remain in force. It was further noted that the proposed parties had unsuccessfully pursued three rounds of litigation before this Court and, in the third round, were granted liberty to approach the Civil Court.

Pursuant thereto, O.S. No.5495 of 2024 was instituted, but no interim order has been passed therein affecting the order dated 04.10.2022. Aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.2 of 2026, the appellants have preferred the present Writ Appeal.

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has advanced the following submissions:

In the present case, the order under appeal is dated 01.07.2026, passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.2 of 2026 in W.P. No.9996 of 2026, whereby the application filed by the appellants seeking their impleadment as respondent Nos.6 to 8 in the Writ Petition was dismissed. The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival contentions, recorded a finding that the proposed parties had no subsisting locus to participate in the affairs of the Union, particularly in view of the order dated 04.10.2022 passed by the Additional Registrar of Trade Unions, whereby the group headed by M. Thomas Reddy was recognised as the elected body of the Union. The learned Single Judge further observed that the said order continues to remain in force and has not been set aside or otherwise disturbed by any competent Court. In this regard, the objection raised by the Registry, that the appellants have not availed the alternative remedy available to them, goes to the root of the very maintainability of the present Writ Appeal and, therefore, warrants no interference by this Court.

It is well settled that a Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent lies only against a ‘judgment’ of a learned Single Judge, i.e., a decision determining or substantially affecting the rights or liabilities of the parties. However, in the present case, the question is not merely whether the order under appeal answers the description of a ‘judgment’, but whether the appellants, having regard to the history of the proceedings and the remedy already available to them, can maintain the present Writ Appeal.

The order dated 01.07.2026 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2026 in W.P. No.9996 of 2026 by the learned Single Judge and the material placed on record disclose the following relevant facts:

It is to be noted that the appellants cannot be permitted to use the present Writ Appeal to circumvent the pending Civil Court proceedings. The learned Single Judge has rightly noted that the order dated 04.10.2022 passed by the Additional Registrar of Trade Unions continues to remain in force and that the appellants have not obtained any interim relief in O.S. No.5495 of 2024. Until the dispute is adjudicated by the competent Civil Court, the appellants cannot assert a right to participate in the affairs of the Union, including the operation of its bank account. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the appellants have an effective and efficacious remedy in O.S.No.5495 of 2024. The pendency of the said suit, wherein the very dispute concerning their claim is already under adjudication, disentitles the appellants from pursuing the same claim before this Court in the present Writ Appeal. Permitting such parallel proceedings would amount to permitting the appellants to pursue the same grievance before multiple forums.

Further, in response to the Registry’s objection that an appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge is required to be accompanied by a certified copy of the order under appeal, the appellants endorsed that, since the learned Single Judge had reserved orders and the order was stated to be a docket order, it was not possible to obtain a certified copy of the full order with cause title. The said contention cannot be accepted. The order dated 01.07.2026 in I.A.No.2 of 2026 is a reasoned order dealing with the rival submissions and recording findings on the issue of impleadment.

Moreover, the fact that the learned Single Judge has reserved orders on the main Writ Petition and posted it for 29.07.2026 is irrelevant to the requirement of filing a certified copy of the implead order. The implead order is a complete order in itself and is appealable. The appellants cannot be permitted to circumvent the requirement of filing a certified copy by claiming that the order is a ‘docket order’.

Even assuming that the present Writ Appeal is considered on merits, this Court is of the view that the appellants have not made out a prima facie case for their impleadment in the Writ Petition.

Under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, impleadment depends on whether the proposed party is a necessary or proper party. In the present case, the appellants have not established the requisite locus, as the order dated 04.10.2022 of the Additional Registrar of Trade Unions recognising the group headed by M. Thomas Reddy as the elected body of the Union continues to remain in force, there being no interim order in O.S. No.5495 of 2024 disturbing the same; the appellants have not obtained any order entitling them to function as office bearers of the Union; the relief sought in the Writ Petition, which is directed against respondent Nos.2 to 6 and concerns operation of the Union’s bank account by its authorised signatories, can be effectively adjudicated in their absence; and their asserted interest in the management and affairs of the Union is already the subject matter of O.S. No.5495 of 2024. Thus, the appellants are neither necessary nor proper parties to the Writ Petition, and the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the implead petition.

For the forgoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the appellants have failed to establish either a right or a legally enforceable interest warranting their impleadment in the underlying Writ Petition. The dispute regarding their claim to represent the Union is already pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court, while the order dated 04.10.2022 recognising the elected body of the Union continues to remain in force. The learned Single Judge has rightly declined their impleadment, and no interference is warranted by this Court.

In view of the above, the office objection raised by the Registry as to the maintainability of WA(SR) is upheld. The appeal is not maintainable in its present form and accordingly, the registration of the same is refused.