Kerala High Court
K.S.E.B. Thozhilali Union vs K.S.E.B. Thozhilali Union ... on 24 July, 1987
Equivalent citations: (1993)IIILLJ461KER
ORDER
Radhakrishna Menon J.
1. The petitioner is a trade union registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926, for short 'The Act'. The Registrar of Trade Unions cancelled the registration granted under Section 8 of the Act by the order which was under challenge before the district Court, Trivandrum, in the appeal, the petitioner has filed under Section 11 of the Act.
2. The first respondent claiming itself to be a different trade union presented I.A. 6/84 under Order 1, Rule 10(2) C.P.C for getting itself impleaded as a party to the appeal. This petition was opposed by the petitioner. The petitioner inter alia contended that the first respondent has no connection whatsoever with the petitioner and hence its prayer to get itself impleaded as a party respondent to the appeal cannot be taken cognizance of.
3. Entering the finding that the first respondent has locus stand/to present the petition to get itself impleaded as a party respondent to the appeal, I.A. 6/84 was allowed. The said order is under challenge in this C.R.P.
4. Order 1 Rule 10(2) deleting unnecessary parts of the said Rule, reads:-
"Court may strike out or add parties :- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order........ that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added."
The power conferred on the courts by this provision is confined to two cases. (1) When a necessary party, who ought to have been impleaded, was omitted to be impleaded, and (2) when the question involved in the case cannot be effectually and completely adjudicated upon without the presence of a party. To put it differently the court has no power to order the impleadment of a person as a party if he could not have been originally impleaded under Order 1 Rule 1 or Rule 3. Similarly if the presence of the person sought to be impleaded is not necessary to adjudicate upon the question effectually and completely there is no need to implead the said person. It is in this backdrop the question involved in this case requires to be answered.
5. The order which was under challenge in the appeal was one passed under Section 10 of the Act. By the said order the Registrar has cancelled the certificate of registration issued to the petitioner union under Section 9. The Registration can be cancelled for any of the reasons made mention of in Section 10. A reading of this Section would make it clear that an order cancelling the certificate of Registration issued under Section 9, could be the subject matter of a lis between the trade union whose registration has been cancelled and the Registrar. No other person or trade union could be said to be aggrieved by this order. If that be so, one fails to see how another trade union gets the right to intervene and oppose the appeal, the aggrieved trade union may file under Section 11 of the Act, against the order cancelling the certificate of Registration issued in its favour.
6. On a plain reading of Sections 10 and 11 of the Act it is clear that no other trade union, or for that matter no other person can be said to be interested in the outcome of the appeal, the aggrieved trade union may file under Section 11, challenging the order cancelling its certificate of registration.
7. Considered in the light of the principles enunciated above, the order of the District Court directing the impleadment of the first respondent as a party to the appeal, is not sustainable in law.
For the reasons stated above the order under challenge is vacated.
The CRP is allowed. No costs.