AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—By consent of all the contesting parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
Aggrieved by the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai dated 16.07.2003 made in M.A. No. 15 of 2003 in I.D. No. 5 of 2002, Shri Kanchi
Kamakoti Peetam Charitable Trust Hospital through its Managing Trustee has filed the above writ petition to quash the same.
The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:
The petitioner is a Public Charitable Trust rendering services to the Society at large. The petitioner Trust, purchased the financial asset of the third
respondent in accordance with the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement and Security and Interest
Act,2002. The sale is free of all encumbrances whatsoever. The petitioner came to understand that the third respondent had availed financial
assistance from various financial institutions to meet its business requirements. On account of default committed by it, the financial institution, viz.,
ICICI Bank had exercised its powers under the Act and brought the financial assets for sale. The petitioner herein participated in the sale
proceedings and purchased the financial assets for proper and valid consideration. The movables in the hospital was purchased for a consideration
of Rs.6.05 crores and the immovable property has been purchased for a sum of Rs.9.35 crores, totaling Rs.15.40 crores. The said assets have
also been taken by the petitioner for the purpose of commencing hospital activities. The employees of third respondent Management raised an
industrial dispute, claiming various reliefs arising out of the lockout announced by the Management in their notice dated 19.06.2000 and the same
has been referred to by the Tamil Nadu Government to the first respondent and the same is pending. On coming to have knowledge of the sale in
favour of the petitioner herein, the second respondent - Union moved an Application in M.A.No.15 of 2003 before the first respondent, seeking to
implead the petitioner herein as a party respondent to the industrial dispute on the ground that the petitioner is a ""successor in interest"". The
petitioner contested the said application by filing counter affidavit. However, by order dated 16.07.2003, the first respondent allowed the said
application, impleading the petitioner as a party respondent to the industrial dispute. Hence, the present writ petition.
The second respondent Union has filed an affidavit seeking to vacate the interim order, which is treated as a counter affidavit in the main writ
petition. It is stated that the Tamilnad Hospital was started about 12 years back and more than 460 employees were appointed by the
Management. The hospital was running in good condition and more than 200 patients were taking treatment as in-patients. The representatives of
the Union have made a representation on 25.03.2000, demanding D.A. for the period from 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000, as per
G.O.Ms.No.23/12766 dated 25.02.1999 and the issue was under conciliation. However, the Management has issued a notice on 19.06.2000,
stating that they suspended the operations with immediate effect and no salary will be payable on the basis of ""no work no pay"". Moreover, the
suspension of operation amounts to lockout and the Management did not obtain permission from the concerned authorities and they had violated
the provisions of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short ""I.D.Act""). The Union has raised an industrial dispute, which was
referred to the Industrial Tribunal, first respondent herein and numbered as I.D.No.5 of 2002. During the pendency of the above dispute, the
ICICI Limited - 4th respondent herein taken over the hospital along with movables and immovables, which are subject to be recovered in case
award is passed in favour of the workmen. Since, the entire property have been taken over by ICICI Ltd., they were impleaded as party
respondent and they have also appeared before the Tribunal and filed their counter. Thereafter, without calling for any tender or auction, the
Hospital was sold to the petitioner herein. In those circumstances, the Union filed an impleading petition, viz., M.A.No.15 of 2003, seeking to
implead the petitioner, who has purchased the hospital. Further, the property has been purchased with liabilities by the petitioner, it will have to
satisfy if any award is passed in favour of the workmen as ""successor in interest"" as per Section 18(3) of the I.D. Act.
In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the contesting second respondent.
It is seen that against the closure (suspension of operation) of Tamilnad Hospital on 19.06.2000, at the instance of the Tamilnad Hospital
Employees Union, the Government of Tamil Nadu referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal to decide,
Whether the demand of the Union that the action of the management of M/s. Tamilnad Hospital Limited, 439, Cheran Nagar, Perumbakkam,
Chennai in declaring suspension of operations from 19.06.2000, is in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act is justified? If so, to
what relief are the workmen of the Hospital entitled to?
It is the claim of the Tamilnad Hospital Employees Union - second respondent herein that when the case is pending, ICICI Bank Ltd., - Financing
Bank of the Tamilnad Hospital, has issued a notice to the Hospital authorities to take over the Hospital and after negotiation with Sri Kanchi
Sankarachariyar Trust - proposed party, received the advance of sum of Rs. 2 crores. It is also stated that since ICICI had sold the Hospital to Sri
Kanchi Kamakoti Charitable Trust for a sum of Rs. 21 crores, it is just and necessary to implead the proposed respondent as party respondent in
I.D. No. 5 of 2002. The proposed respondent is also liable to comply the award to be passed by the Industrial Tribunal as ""Successor in Interest"".
The said application was resisted by the proposed respondent by filing a counter affidavit. The Administrator of the Kanchi Kamakotti Peetam
Charitable Trust in his counter affidavit has stated that the proposed party is not a necessary party to the proceedings, they purchased the ""financial
asset"" in accordance with the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Finance Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
The sale is free of all encumbrances whatsoever. In any event, the same cannot be questioned by the Workers'' Union in these petitions. The
proposed party has not taken the management of the Tamilnad Hospital in any manner. There is no employer-employee relationship between the
Union and the proposed respondent. As such the petition to implead them as one of the respondents is not maintainable. The ""Financial Asset"" of
the debtor (Tamil Nadu Hospitals) has been purchased pursuant to the direction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Before the Industrial Tribunal, no
oral and documentary evidence let in by either parties. The Industrial Tribunal, on appreciation of the stand taken by the parties and after holding
that since the proposed respondent purchased the property, it is having interest in the Industrial Dispute, which is a necessary party for disposal of
the I.D., allowed the said application and impleaded the proposed party as third respondent in I.D.No.5 of 2002.
Mr. V. Kuberan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would contend that the petitioner cannot be under any stretch of imagination
treated to be an Employer or the Management and the question of impleading the Trust in the Industrial Dispute does not arise. He also contended
that the petitioner Trust is not ""Successor in Interest"" of the third respondent herein. According to him, the order directing impleading the petitioner
is bad in law and beyond the jurisdiction vested with the Tribunal.
On the other hand, Mr. R. Gowthaman, learned counsel for the contesting second respondent - Employees Union would contend that since the
entire properties have been taken over by the ICICI Limited, they were impleaded as party respondent before the Tribunal and the writ petitioner,
who purchased the Hospital, knowing fully well that the workers numbering 460 have not been settled and the dispute is pending before the
Industrial Tribunal, hence the petitioner herein will have to satisfy if any award is passed in favour of the workmen as ""successor in interest"" as per
Section 18(3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He further contended that the present writ petition is nothing but to drag on the matter for
pressuring the workmen to settle the matter.
I have carefully considered the rival submissions.
From among the contentions, the only point for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the petitioner is a necessary party for the disposal
of I.D. No. 5 of 2002 and whether the Tribunal is justified in ordering the impleading petition?
The second respondent - Employees Union raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 5 of 2002 before the Industrial Tribunal at Chennai u/s 2(k)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In view of the fact that the writ petitioner purchased the Hospital and other properties, the Employees Union
filed M.A.No.15 of 2003 before the said Tribunal, seeking to implead Kanchi Kamakotti Peetam Charitable Trust as party respondent. The said
petition was filed u/s 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Chapter IV of the I.D. Act deals with procedure, powers and duties of the authorities.
Industrial Tribunal is one of the authorities enumerated in Section 11. As per Sub-section 3 of Section 11, the Industrial Tribunal has some powers
as are vested in a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit, in respect of certain matters enumerated therein. Though
the specific provision, namely, addition of parties has not been mentioned in Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the I.D. Act for complete
adjudication of the dispute raised, I am of the view that the Tribunal / Labour Court can exercise incidental powers. In the light of the claim made in
the main I.D., and of the fact that the Hospital and the other properties of the Employer were sold and the petitioner had purchased the same
though free from encumbrances, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, I am of the view that the writ petitioner is a necessary party for complete
adjudication in the dispute raised in I.D.No.5 of 2002.
It is also relevant to note that Rule 24 of the Central Rules, 1957 confers powers on the Labour Courts, which are vested in the Civil Court
under the CPC in respect of discovery and inspection, granting adjournment, reception of evidence taken on affidavit, summon and examine any
person, whose evidence appears to be material. Conjoined reading of the provisions referred to above and the dispute raised, I am of the view that
the Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal is not excluded in directing persons other than the employer and employee, who would be required for
complete adjudication of the issue. A reading of the provisions, such as Sections 2(k), 10, 11 and 18 of the I.D. Act as well as the Rules show that
the test always must be, is the addition of the party necessary to make the adjudication itself is effective and enforceable. In other words, in the
absence of any specific provision, I am of the view that impleading of a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal / Labour Court is not totally
prohibited. If the Labour Court considers that the presence of such party is necessary for the enforcement of the award, it has ample power to add
or admit a party to the industrial dispute. The authority can consider, in addition to the dispute, specify in the order of reference any matter
incidental to the dispute.
In this regard, it is relevant to refer the case of Palanisamy R. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem reported in 2001 (2) L.L.J. 1693.
While considering similar issue, K. Raviraja Pandian,J., has concluded that,
The power of the Labour Court to add or implead a party is not totally prohibited. If the Labour Court is of the opinion that the presence of the
party is necessary for effective and enforceable adjudication, it can add a party. Further, the Labour Court can adjudicate upon matters, which are
incidental to the order of reference.
It is also worthwhile to refer the case of Natarajan vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli reported in 2001 (1) L.L.J. 1586,
wherein F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J., in similar circumstance has held that u/s 18-B of the I.D. Act, the Labour Court is vested with powers to
implead persons not made parties before conciliation officer, as parties to dispute before it. Since both the decisions are in accordance with the
statutory provisions and considered the interest of parties concerned, I am in agreement with the same. In the light of the statutory provisions
referred to above and for the purpose of complete adjudication, I am of the view that the Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court has incidental powers
including to implead or add parties other then employer, employee or persons before the conciliation officer.
It is also relevant to note that all the financial institutions have sold the property of Tamilnad Hospital to the writ petitioner and the petitioner is
having interest in I.D., pending before the Tribunal, I am in agreement with the conclusion of the Tribunal that the writ petitioner is necessary party
to enable it to factually and completely adjudicate upon the question involved in the industrial dispute. It is made clear that merely because the
petitioner has been impleaded as one of the parties in the I.D., it may not be automatically presumed that the liability is to be fastened on it. It is for
the parties to substantiate their respective claim and ultimately it is the duty of the Tribunal to consider the same with reference to oral and
documentary evidence and arrive a just decision. When such remedy is available, I am unable to appreciate the stand taken by the petitioner. All
the questions / objections including liability are left open and it is for the Tribunal to consider and pass orders while deciding the main I.D. With the
above observation, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP., and WVMP., are also dismissed.