1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1840 OF 2010 Vasant E. Dhanekar & Ors. ....Petitioners V/s. NRC Limited & Ors. ....Respondents Ms.Gayatri Singh for the Petitioners. Mr.R.V. Paranjpe for Respondent No.1. Mr.K.S. Bapat for Respondent No.2. Mr.B.R. Zaveri for the Intervenor. CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 9TH APRIL, 2010. P.C. :- 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr. Paranjpe waives notice for Respondent No.1. Mr.Bapat waives notice for Respondent No.2. Mr.Zaveri waives notice for the Intervenor. 3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 4. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction, (A.A.I.F.R.) New Delhi dated 2 1.12.2009 in M.A. No.414 of 2009 in Appeal No.182 of 2009. By this application, the Petitioners before this Court, had applied for impleadment in the pending appeal on the ground that they were workers of the company and would like to espouse their personal cause regarding the quantum of the dues payable to them such as towards gratuity, retrenchment compensation and earned wages or any other legal dues. In addition, the Petitioners prayed for an injunction against the company from selling of any of its assets including the plant and machinery, land, factory buildings, residential buildings/colony and all other fixed assets in the company’s balance sheet for the 15 months’ period ended 30.6.2008. 5. The A.A.I.F.R. has rejected the said application, on the finding that although the Applicants claimed to be representing 2083 employees, have failed to establish that these workers had formed a group or expressed any dissatisfaction against the settlement/agreement and had submitted any grievance before the Trade Union Officers under the provisions of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. The authority recorded that in the absence of any document, it cannot be held that six Applicants are authorized representatives of 2083 employees or have any locus in the matter. Besides the dispute, all the members of the union can be resolved before an appropriate forum. It also found that no document was produced to establish that N.R.C. Mazdoor Sangh had lost its representative character and is not recognized or its recognization has been withdrawn. For all these reasons, the application came to be allowed. 6. This order is the subject matter of the present Writ Petition before this Court. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioners that the 3 Petitioners may not be necessary or proper parties in relation to the wider issues that may be examined by the A.A.I.F.R., but the Petitioners cannot be non-suited and their request for impleadment rejected, merely because the recognized union could and ought to pursue their claim in the said proceedings. According to the Petitioners, the matters relating to the personal legal dues or personal service condition are the matters which can be agitated even by the individual worker. In other words, it is contended that at least to the extent of the issue regarding the quantum of the legal dues payable or receivable by the Petitioners and similarly placed workers, who have duly authorized the Petitioners to espouse their cause, can be represented by the Petitioners herein. Counsel for the Petitioners invited our attention to the judgment of another Division Bench of this Court dated 11.2.2010 in Writ Petition No.8505 of 2009 and other connected Writ Petitions including the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners herein, that considering the observations in the said judgment, the Petitioners will have to be treated as at least proper parties to the proceedings pending before the A.A.I.F.R. 7. This argument is opposed by the counsel appearing on behalf of the company as well as the Respondents’ recognized union. In our opinion the application of the Petitioners will have to be allowed, in view of the limited relief now claimed before this Court and the assurance given through counsel by the Petitioners, that the Petitioners intend to be impleaded in the proceedings before the A.A.I.F.R., only to permit them to raise the issue relating to the quantum of legal dues payable or receivable by the Petitioners or similarly placed persons who have duly authorized the 4 Petitioners to espouse their cause. 8. The Petitioners, through counsel, assure that they will not raise any other issues except the issue for which their impleadment is permitted before the A.A.I.F.R. in the pending proceedings. Besides, the Petitioners would file their written submissions on 12.4.2010 before the A.A.I.F.R. when the matter is notified for that purpose. The A.A.I.F.R. would consider the written submissions of the Petitioners on its own merits and pass appropriate orders, as may be advised. 9. By this order, we are allowing the impleadment application of the Petitioners. However, their impleadment in the proceedings before the A.A.I.F.R., is limited to the issue regarding the quantum of the legal dues receivable by the Petitioners and similarly placed workers, who have duly authorized the Petitioners. 10. It is not necessary for us to examine the issue stated in the reply affidavit that the Petitioners do not have valid authorization of the concerned workers. That is a matter which can be examined by the A.A.I.F.R. on its own merits. The impleadment of the Petitioners would therefore entitle the Petitioners to espouse their own cause and cause of only those workers who have duly authorized the Petitioners in that behalf, only in relation to the legal dues payable to or receivable by them and no other matter. 11. The Petition is disposed of on the above terms. (R.M. SAVANT, J.) (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)