TARUN CHUGH, CEO AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. versus SAROJ KUMAR PANDA
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 981, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 981 : 2024 INSC 821
Tarun Chugh, CEO and Managing Director, 
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. 
v. 
Saroj Kumar Panda
(Civil Appeal No. 12135 of 2024)
23 September 2024
[J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Respondent No.1 filed a statement of claim before the Tribunal 
impugning his termination vide order dated 25.07.2017 – Tribunal 
passed ex-parte award dated 05.02.2019, the termination of the 
Respondent No.1 was held to be bad – Respondent No.1 was 
directed to be reinstated with back-wages and other service 
benefits – The aforesaid ex-parte Award was challenged by all the 
parties impleaded by the Respondent No.1 before the Tribunal, 
namely, the officers in person, without joining the company-employer 
as a party – The writ petition filed by the writ petitioners/appellants 
before the High Court, impugning the ex-parte Award of the Tribunal, 
was dismissed vide order impugned dated 01.03.2021 – Appellant 
approached the Supreme Court and filed an appeal against the 
order dated 01/03/2024 passed by the High Court – SC while 
setting aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and 
the Award of the Tribunal allowed the appeal.
Whether proper impleadment of parties in any proceedings is sine 
qua non in the matter coming before the court.
Headnotes†
Practice and Procedure – Impleadment – Proper impleadment 
of parties in any proceedings is sine qua non in any matter 
coming before court – A corporate has a
separate legal entity 
as compared to an individual or an officer of the company:
Held: It needs to be appreciated that proper impleadment of parties 
in any proceedings is sine qua non in any matter coming before the 
court. However, what is noticed is that it has become a casualty 
in the process. Due care is not taken at the time of initiation of 
any proceedings before any forum to ensure that proper parties 
* Author
982
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
are impleaded. It needs to be appreciated that a corporate has a 
separate legal entity as compared to an individual or an officer of the 
company. There can be privity of contract between the corporate and 
any other individual and that contract or communication may have 
been signed by any officer on its behalf as an authorized signatory. 
It does not mean that the officer signing the communication or 
the agreement or the executive head of the company becomes 
individually liable for any claim against the company except the 
cases where any specific claim is made in that regard. Any order 
or decree or award passed by the Court, in case proper parties 
are not impleaded, becomes inexecutable. [Paras 10.1 and 10.2]
List of Keywords
Ex-Parte Award; Termination; Reinstate; Impleadment of Proper 
Parties; Privity of Contract; Separate legal entity.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12135 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2021 of the High Court 
of Orissa at Cuttack in WP(C) No. 8877 of 2020
Appearances for Parties
Amol Chitale, Mrs. Shweta Singh Parihar, Sartak Sharma,  
Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Advs. for the Appellant.
R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., Karunakar Mahalik, B. Venkatraman, 
Debasish Mishra, Ms. Sanya Minhas, Advs. for the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
The impugned order1 was passed by the High Court2 in Writ
Petition3 
1	
Dated 01.03.2021
2	
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
3	
W.P.(C)No.8877 of 2020
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 
983
Tarun Chugh, CEO and Managing Director, Bajaj Allianz Life  
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Saroj Kumar Panda
filed by Tarun Chugh,4 Ruben Selvadoray5 and Prabir Ranjan Prusty6 
whereby the ex parte Award7 of the Tribunal8 was upheld.
3.	
Initially the Special Leave Petition was filed by one of the writ 
petitioners, Tarun Chugh, however, while deleting the proforma 
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the array of the parties, as allowed vide 
order dated 30.06.2021, the name of the Petitioner in the Amended 
Cause Title annexed to the S.L.P. paper book is shown as ‘Bajaj 
Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd.’ herein after referred to as ‘the 
Company’, which is different from the original Petitioner. This change 
was made without any order of the Court, hence, cannot be admitted. 
4.	
Briefly, the facts as available on record are that a statement of claim 
was filed by the Respondent No.1 before the Tribunal impugning his 
termination vide order dated 25.07.2017. Vide ex-parte Award dated 
05.02.2019 passed by the Tribunal, the termination of the Respondent 
No.1 was held to be bad. He was directed to be reinstated with back-
wages and other service benefits. The aforesaid ex-parte Award was 
challenged by all the parties impleaded by the Respondent No.1 
before the Tribunal, namely, the officers in person, without joining 
the company - employer as a party. The writ petition filed by the writ 
petitioners/appellants herein before the High Court, impugning the
ex-parte Award of the Tribunal, was dismissed vide order impugned.
5.	
Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that it is a case in which 
the matter was entrusted to the counsel for appearance before the 
Tribunal, but later he failed to take care of the proceedings of the 
case. The Officer in the Legal Department had left the management 
company on 26.09.2018 and the Officer in the Human Resource 
Department had left the management company on 24.05.2019 
respectively, i.e., during the pendency of the dispute before the 
Tribunal. It was under these circumstances that proper representation 
could not be made. 
5.1	 The Respondent No.1 had failed to implead the employer with 
whom there may be privity of contract. Only the officers of the 
4	
CEO and Managing Director, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
5	
Chief Human Resource Officer, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd.
6	
Regional Head, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd.
7	
Dated 05.02.2019
8	
Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.86 of 2017
984
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
company were impleaded. Such officers of the company had 
not engaged Respondent No.1 in their personal capacity. It 
was argued that the Respondent No.1 was initially appointed 
as Branch Accountant on 09.05.2006 by the Company. 
Thereafter, he was promoted as Senior Divisional Accountant in 
Grade L(IA) on 01.04.2009. He was redesignated as Business 
Supporting Officer (Managerial Post) w.e.f. 01.08.2014. He was 
transferred from Finance Department to Sales Administration 
w.e.f. 01.01.2015 and again from Agency Sales Administration 
to Agency Sales w.e.f. 15.05.2017. On account of Departmental 
restructuring resulting in changes in roles and responsibilities 
of different officers, the Respondent No.1 became surplus 
and redundant in the company and there being no alternative 
work available for his adjustment, however, his services 
were dispensed with, as per the terms of appointment and a 
communication was sent to the Respondent No.1 on 25.07.2017 
by the company. A sum of ₹ 1,07,787/- was transferred in his 
bank account in lieu of notice for termination. The Respondent 
No. 1 was earning a salary of ₹35,929/- per month, as was 
his last drawn salary for the month of June 2017. Further, 
it was argued that the Respondent No.1 was working on a 
managerial post, by no stretch of imagination he could be 
treated as workman, entitling him to invoke the jurisdiction of 
the Tribunal by raising an industrial dispute. The
order passed 
by the Tribunal was totally without jurisdiction. This basic issue 
should have been examined by the Tribunal even on the facts, 
which were brought on record.
5.2	 The order of the Tribunal was challenged before the High 
Court placing the aforesaid facts and also explaining the lapse 
on the part of the counsel, who was later removed from the 
panel of the advocates engaged to conduct cases on behalf 
of the company. However, the writ petition was dismissed. The 
submission is that an opportunity be granted, and the matter 
may be remitted back to the Tribunal for re-examination on 
merits after impleadment of proper parties.
6.	
On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 
submitted that after due service of notice, no one had appeared 
before the Tribunal, hence, they were proceeded against ex-parte. 
The management was well within knowledge of the pendency of the
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 
985
Tarun Chugh, CEO and Managing Director, Bajaj Allianz Life  
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Saroj Kumar Panda
matter before the Tribunal, hence,it cannot be allowed to take the 
plea that employer was not impleaded as such,as senior officers were 
already before the Tribunal, as such a hyper-technical submission 
deserves to be rejected. Once service to the Respondent No.1 before 
the Tribunal was complete, which is not disputed by the Appellant 
before this Court, there is no good reason for setting aside the Award 
of the Tribunal only because of the Appellant’s lapse in appearance. 
The appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7.	
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
8.	
The facts as evident from the record are that the Respondent No.1 
was appointed as Branch Accountant on 09.05.2006. Thereafter, 
he was promoted as Senior Divisional Accountant in Grade L(IA) 
on 01.04.2009. He was redesignated as Business Support Officer 
(Managerial Post) w.e.f. 01.08.2014. Further, he was transferred 
from Finance Department to Sales Administration w.e.f. 01.01.2015 
and again from Agency Sales Administration to Agency Sales w.e.f. 
15.05.2017. It is claimed that on account of Departmental restructuring 
resulting in changes in duties and responsibilities of different officers, 
the Respondent No.1 became surplus and there being no alternative 
job available for his adjustment, his services were dispensed with, 
as per the terms of appointment.
9.	
The Respondent No. 1 challenged his termination before the Regional 
Labour Commissioner (Central), which led to conciliation proceedings. 
However, no settlement could be arrived at. The Respondent No. 1 was 
issued a Certificate dated 25.10.2017 to approach the Tribunal directly. 
10.	 The Respondent No.1 filed claim petition9 before the Tribunal. Three 
officers of the company were impleaded and not the company, which 
was the employer of the Respondent No.1. Para 3 of the Award of 
the Tribunal mentions that in spite of notice, neither the management 
company nor the officers who were impleaded as party appeared. 
Hence, they were proceeded against ex parte. However, the fact 
remains that the management was not a party before the Tribunal. 
Finally, while granting the relief also it was directed that the first 
party management-Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed 
to reinstate the applicant workman whereas the first party impleaded 
9	
I.D. Case No.86 of 2017
986
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
before the Tribunal was not Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. but 
Tarun Chugh, CEO and Managing Director of the company.
10.1	It is to observe that proper impleadment of parties in any 
proceedings is sine qua non in any matter coming before the 
court. However, what is noticed is that it has become a casualty 
in the process. Due care is not taken at the time of initiation 
of any proceedings before any forum to ensure that proper 
parties are impleaded.
10.2	The case in hand is not in isolation. It needs to be appreciated 
that a corporate has a separate legal entity as compared to an 
individual or an officer of the company. There can be privity of 
contract between the corporate and any other individual and 
that contract or communication may have been signed by any 
officer on its behalf as an authorized signatory. It does not mean 
that the officer signing the communication or the agreement or 
the executive head of the company becomes individually liable 
for any claim against the company except the cases where 
any specific claim is made in that regard. Any order or decree 
or award passed by the Court, in case proper parties are not 
impleaded, becomes inexecutable.
11.	 The plea taken before the High Court while challenging the aforesaid 
Award of the Tribunal was that the then Human Resource Manager 
and the Legal Manager were dealing with the matter and had 
engaged a counsel to represent the company before
the Tribunal. 
However, the Legal Manager had left the management company 
on 26.09.2018 while the Human Resource Manager had left the 
management company on 24.05.2019, i.e., during the pendency 
of the matter before the Tribunal. The counsel10 engaged by the 
management company did not take proper care of matter,hence,was 
removed from the panel of the advocates conducting cases on behalf 
of the company. However, the High Court did not accept this plea 
and rejected the writ petition.
12.	 On the facts at hand and the material available on record, we find 
that there was a technical defect in the claim petition filed by the 
Respondent No.1 as the management who was his employer was 
10	
Name is being withheld
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 
987
Tarun Chugh, CEO and Managing Director, Bajaj Allianz Life  
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Saroj Kumar Panda
not even impleaded as party before the Tribunal, still a direction was 
issued to the management to reinstate him. The designation and 
job profile of the Respondent No.1 and even the material placed on 
record by the Respondent No. 1 were required to be considered by 
the Tribunal to come to the conclusion whether he was a workman 
or not. It is only then jurisdiction is vested in the Tribunal to deal with 
the subject. The reason assigned by the Appellant explaining the 
non-appearance of the counsel before the Tribunal seems plausible 
and acceptable. As the two officers, who were dealing with the matter 
and engaged the then counsel, had also left the organization. 
13.	 Considering the totality of the facts, as discussed above, in our 
opinion, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 
14.	 For the reasons mentioned above, we allow the present appeal. 
The impugned order passed by the High Court and the Award of the 
Tribunal are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal 
for fresh consideration on merits after proper parties are impleaded, 
giving due opportunity to both the parties. There shall be no order 
as to costs. 
Result of the Case: Appeal Allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Himanshu Rai, Hony. Associate Editor 
(Verified by: Kanu Agrawal, Adv.)