Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India dismissed a special leave petition arising from an order of the Allahabad High Court dated April 21, 1980 in Miscellaneous Application in Civil Revision No. 1136/79. The dispute concerned the service claim of the appellant, S.K. Saldi, who alleged that he was initially appointed in M/s. Meerut Straw Board Mills, Meerut, claimed to be a subsidiary of Jaswant Sugar Mills, and was subsequently transferred on deputation to S.B. Sugar Mills. He sought repatriation to his parent department on the ground that the Mill was not inclined to retain his services. The appellant filed Civil Suit Case No. 26/48 before the Civil Judge, Bijnor, which by order dated March 29, 1979 directed S.B. Sugar Mill, Bijnor to formally reinstate him and thereafter transfer him to the parent department. The Mill challenged this order in revision before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court held that the appellant was not entitled to be reinstated; since an enquiry was pending against him, the Court at the most could direct an enquiry followed by action according to its result. That order was not challenged and became final. The appellant then filed a revision petition before the High Court which was dismissed, leading to the present appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that as he was initially appointed in Meerut Straw Board and transferred to the Mill on deputation, he was entitled to be repatriated when the Mill was not inclined to retain his services, and therefore the Civil Court's direction was valid and the High Court was not justified in reversing it. The Supreme Court noted several insurmountable hurdles. First, the appellant had not impleaded his claimed employer, M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mills, in the suit; he had suo motu impleaded the sugar Mill in the special leave petition filed in the Supreme Court but subsequently deleted it. Consequently, the sugar Mill against whom relief was sought was not a party to the suit, making the suit liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary and proper party. Second, the main order had been allowed to become final and not challenged. The Court observed that the review order could not have more force than the original order. Finding no manifest error of law warranting interference, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without costs and dissolved the interim order passed earlier.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Non-joinder of Necessary Party - Non-impleadment of actual employer in suit for reinstatement renders suit liable to dismissal - Not mentioned - The appellant filed a civil suit for reinstatement and transfer to parent department without impleading his claimed employer M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mills; the Supreme Court observed that the suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary and proper party. Held that the omission of the actual employer was a fatal defect and the relief could not be granted against a party not before the court (Paras Not mentioned). B) Res Judicata and Finality of Orders - Finality of Unchallenged Order - Order allowed to become final cannot be reopened through review or revision with greater force - Not mentioned - The High Court in the earlier revision held that the appellant was not entitled to reinstatement and at most an enquiry could be directed; that order was not challenged and became final; the appellant subsequently filed a revision petition which was dismissed. Held that the review order could not have more force than the original order, and the failure to challenge the earlier order barred re-agitation of the same issue (Paras Not mentioned). C) Service Law - Deputation and Repatriation - Employee on deputation not automatically entitled to reinstatement in parent department pending enquiry - Not mentioned - The appellant claimed transfer on deputation to S.B. Sugar Mills and sought repatriation; the High Court held reinstatement could not be directed while an enquiry was pending. Held that the proper course was to conduct an enquiry and take action according to its result, not to order formal reinstatement and transfer (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was entitled to reinstatement and repatriation to his parent department after being on deputation; whether the civil suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the actual employer as a necessary and proper party; whether the previous High Court order not challenged had attained finality and barred subsequent proceedings
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without costs and dissolved the interim order passed by the Court, finding no manifest error of law warranting interference.
Law Points
- Suit for reinstatement and transfer liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary and proper party
- order not challenged and allowed to become final cannot be reopened by review or revision with greater force
- no manifest error of law warranting interference under Article 136
