1 W.P.No.7164.10 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7164 OF 2010 Bharatiya Kamgar Sena ... Petitioner v/s M/s.Oberoi Hotel & Resort & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Kiran Bapat i/by M/s.Desai & Desai Associates for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Gehani for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.A.V.Bukhari i/by Kishor Shetty for Resp. No.3. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petition has been filed against the order of the Industrial Court dated 30.7.2010. The Industrial Court has directed the petitioner to implead respondent No.3 as a party respondent to the complaint filed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a complaint under Item 5 of Schedule II and Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour 2 W.P.No.7164.10 Practices Act, 1971 (in short, MRTU & PULP Act). The Industrial Court has granted interim relief on 21.9.2005 to the petitioner as follows:- “(a) Pending hearing and final disposal of the main complaint, restrain the respondent Nos.1 and 2 from discussing, negotiation and signing any settlement with any other union or any group of workmen or in their individual capacity other than specifically recognized union i.e. complainant union. (a1) Pending hearing and final disposal of the main complaint, restrain the respondent Nos.1 and 2 from allowing any other union for their entry except the recognized union or for conducting the gate meeting in the premises of the respondent No.1 hotel for any reason which will cause grave inconvenience and prejudice to the day-to-day normal duties of the member workmen of the complainant which is a recognized union. (b) Pending hearing and final disposal of the main complaint, direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to discuss and negotiate and sign the settlement in respect of charter of demands letter dated 29.3.2005. (c) Pending hearing and final disposal of the main complaint, direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to discuss, negotiate, bargain and sign settlement in respect of individual or collective grievances/ demands with only recognized union, i.e. complainant union. (d) Pending hearing and final disposal of the main complaint, restrain the respondent Nos.1 and 2 from terminating the services of concerned workmen specifically Unit Committee Members by way of discharge, dismissal or any other manner.” 3 W.P.No.7164.10 This interim relief has been running in favour of the petitioner since 2005. 2. An application was made by respondent No.3 Union contending that it is vitally affected by the interim order and that therefore it should be impleaded as a proper and necessary party to the complaint. It appears that the prayer in the application has been made to implead it as complainant No.2 in the present complaint. 3. The Industrial Court has, after considering the material on record observed, without going into the merits of the complaint that, it would be necessary to hear respondent No. 3 as it is a party which is vitally affected by the interim order and would be affected by any orders passed in the complaint. The Industrial Court has then observed that respondent No.3 cannot be impleaded as a co-complainant but since its presence was necessary before the Court, it should be impleaded as a respondent to the complaint. 4. Mr.Bapat, the learned advocate for the petitioner takes exception to this order by contending that the application was for impleading respondent No.3 as a co-complainant and, 4 W.P.No.7164.10 therefore, the Industrial Court should have either granted it or rejected the same and could not have converted it into an application for impleadment as a respondent to the complaint. 5. In my opinion, this submission in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is without merit. The application itself states as follows :- “It is, therefore, just proper and necessary that Maharashtra Samarth Kamgar Sanghatana i.e. the other union should be heard in the matter, as the other union is a necessary and proper party in the present complaint. In the absence of other Union no relief/s, much less final relief/s can be granted in the present proceedings.” It is true that the prayer mentions complainant No.2. However, the Industrial Court has, in my opinion, rightly seen the substance of the application and concluded that it needs to be allowed. 6. Mr.Bapat further contends that respondent No.3 came into existence in respondent No.1 establishment only about 5 days prior to the complaint being filed. The complainant union was unaware of its existence when the complaint was filed. He further submits that all the prayers in the complaint do not affect the respondent Union as these prayers are sought against respondent No.1. 5 W.P.No.7164.10 7. These submissions cannot be accepted. As rightly held by the Industrial Court, any order passed in the complaint directing respondent No.1 not to negotiate with any other Union but the petitioner would vitally affect the rights of respondent No.3. 8. In any event, the Industrial Court can always consider at the hearing of the complaint whether respondent No.3, which is not a recognized union, could have any rights at all in such a situation. 7. Writ petition rejected. 8. The time to carry out the amendment is extended till 30.9.2010. ..... 6 W.P.No.7164.10