vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1510 OF 2005 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1510 OF 2005 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1510 OF 2005 IN SUIT NO.1746 OF 2000 Kotak Mahindra Finance Limited ... Plaintiff V/s. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. ... Defendant And Sugar Factory Mazdoor Union ... Applicant And M/s.Choice Enterprises ... Respondent Mr.Bharat Vaishnava for Applicant Mr.R.S. Jain i/b Legal Juris for Respondent Mr.Kartikeya Desai for Plaintiff Mr.H.D. Magar for Defendant Mr.H.Shaikh, Representative of Court Receiver, present CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DECEMBER 12, 2005 DECEMBER 12, 2005 DECEMBER 12, 2005 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This Chamber Summons has been filed in order to implead the applicant as a party defendant to the suit. The applicant is a trade union of workers who were employed by the defendant. The applicant has sought to be impleaded as a party to the suit NO.1746 of 2000. The applicant claims that it is a necessary party in the suit which has been filed for recovery of leased equipment from the defendant. These equipments constituted a part of the machinery on which the workers performed their work. The applicant contends that unless the equipment remains with the defendant, no work would be provided to the workers and they will not be paid their dues. 2. Several proceedings have been initiated by the : 2 : workers in order to prevent recovery of the leased equipment. It appears that on 5.10.2002, this Court had directed that the leased equipment should be handed over to the highest bidder and the Court Receiver was to stand discharged without passing accounts. Thereafter, an application was made by the Union i.e., the Applicant herein before the Madhya Pradesh High Court for an injunction against the Company i.e., the Defendant herein from transferring or disposing any of its assets including the plant and machinery. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has by an order dated 30.9.2005 modified its earlier order and has held that the orders passed by this Court should be given effect to. The Applicant, aggrieved by this order moved the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition No.23214 of 2005. The Supreme Curt by its order dated 25.11.2005 dismissed the Special Leave Petition by observing that the dismissal would not stand in the way of the Petitioner i.e., the applicant herein seeking relief in an appropriate Court. 3. The applicant now seeks to be impleaded as a party to the Suit. In my view, this application cannot be allowed for more reasons than one. The workers will have no right to be impleaded in a suit filed for recovery of leased property from their employer. If they are entitled to any dues on account of their employment with the Defendant, the High Court is not the appropriate forum to agitate their grievance. : 3 : 4. Chamber Summons is dismissed.