IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20979 of 2010(S) -------------------------- OA.16/2009 of CAT,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. BOBAN LAL V., OFFICE OF THE (SDE) EXTERNAL, BANL, PARUTHIPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. LEENA ROSE THOMAS, (SDE) D TAX, BSNL, M.S.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. S.SURENDRAN NAIR, SDE, STAFF, BSNL, M.S.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. R.UDAYAKUMAR, SDE, CALL CENTRE BSNL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. K.P.RAJAN, SDE (B.S.S.) M.S., B.S.N.L. ERNAKULAM. 6. MANOJ KRISHNAN K. A.D. WI-MAX, BSNL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. S.NARENDRAKUMAR, S.D.E.TRANSMISSION, B.S.N.L. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. VALSA PHILIP, SDE, (C.S.C), BSNL., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. SURESH JYOTHI B., SDE (LEGAL) M.S., BSNL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.DEEPAK SMT.APARNA RAJAN WPC.20979/10 2 RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATION OFFICE 6TH FLOOR STATESMAN HOUSE, NEW DELHI -110001. 2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (BSNL) KERALA TELECOM CIRCLE, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, TELECOM COMMISSION,DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, SANCHAR BHAVAN, ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110001. 4. THOMAS ZACHARIAH, MUNJATTU, KARINGATTIL, PERISHERI P.O.,CHENGANNUR. R1, R2 BY SRI.MATHEW K.PHILIP, S.C. R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASG. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.20979 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.The petitioners are employees of BSNL. They challenge an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench that was rendered in O.A.16/09. The writ petitioners were not parties to that Original Application. Therefore, when this matter came up for admission, it was noticed that they could not move this Court as the court of first instance, going by the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajeev Kumar & Another v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan & Others [AIR 2010 SC 1679], rendered relying on the judgment of the Constitution Bench in L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Others [(1997) 3 SCC 261]. Faced with this situation, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner points out WPC.20979/10 2 that in Rajeev Kumar (supra), the Tribunal had never answered any question as to non-joinder of necessary parties, while in the case in hand, the Tribunal had taken note of the contention of BSNL that necessary parties are not before it and it concluded that no further parties are required to be on the array to determine the issues in the light of the nature of the relief sought for. The Tribunal, in fact, overruled the objections of BSNL in that regard, it is pointed out. 2.Learned counsel for BSNL states that it is also aggrieved by the impugned order of the Tribunal and the precedent of the Tribunal, referred to in the impugned order, is already under challenge before this Court and that the said matter has been admitted and an order of stay has been granted. Be that as it may, in Rajeev Kumar (supra), the Apex Court categorically stated that the grievances of third parties that they were not parties to proceedings before the Tribunal WPC.20979/10 3 ought to be raised only before the Tribunal and not before the High Court in proceedings under Article 226 and 227 and no such writ petition could be entertained because it would amount to treating the High Court as the court of first instance for entertaining the lis between the writ petitioners and those who are before the Tribunal. In fact, the Apex Court has clearly indicated in paragraph 16 of the judgment in Rajeev Kumar (supra) that the remedy of any person aggrieved by such an order would lie before the Tribunal in the form of application for review. Even if a question as to non-joinder of necessary parties has been raised by parties who are arrayed in a proceedings and if such issues are answered and if the Tribunal has consciously considered the same, that would bind only parties who are before the Tribunal and would not affect the rights of parties who could move the Tribunal thereafter, seeking that the order is to be reviewed. In this view of the matter, we are bound to follow the law laid by the Apex Court in Rajeev Kumar (supra). WPC.20979/10 4 Therefore, we dismiss this writ petition in limine, without expressing anything on merits and preserving the rights of the parties to move the Tribunal for review of the impugned order. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, Judge. kkb.14/07.