Case Note & Summary
The case involves two writ petitions filed by Empress Mills, a unit of Maharashtra State Textile Corporation Limited, challenging orders passed in B.I.R. Case No.45 of 1986 and B.I.R. Case No.38 of 1986. These BIR cases were instituted by respondent no.3 (a union) against respondent no.4 (Central India Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Company Limited) and its directors under various sections of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, seeking declarations of illegal change, illegal closure, and illegal lockout. The Labour Court granted these declarations on 28th February 1995. The petitioners, who were not original parties, filed applications for intervention in both cases, which were rejected on 22nd December 1993. They challenged these rejections through B.I.R. Revision Nos.3 of 1994 and 2 of 1994 before the Industrial Court, which dismissed both revisions by a common order on 16th November 1994. The present writ petitions challenge the dismissal of these revisions and the final adjudication order of the Labour Court, as the petitioners were not permitted to participate. The dispute relates to the erstwhile Empress Mills managed by respondent no.4. On 18th April 1986, respondent no.4 issued a notice of suspension of operations, followed by a lockout on 3rd May 1986. The union filed B.I.R. Case No.45 of 1986 on 29th April 1986 challenging this action. The court considered whether the petitioners had a right to intervene. The court held that the petitioners were not necessary parties to the proceedings and that the rejection of their intervention applications was justified. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Intervention - Necessary Party - Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, Sections 78, 79, 82, 83, 98A, 102, 104, 106, 107 - Petitioners sought to intervene in BIR cases challenging illegal change, closure, and lockout - Their applications were rejected by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court dismissed revisions - Held that the petitioners were not necessary parties and the rejection was proper (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, who were not parties to the original BIR cases, had a right to intervene in the proceedings and whether the rejection of their intervention applications was justified.
Final Decision
The writ petitions are dismissed. The orders rejecting intervention and dismissing revisions are upheld.
Law Points
- Intervention
- Necessary Party
- Bombay Industrial Relations Act
- Section 78
- Revision
- Writ Jurisdiction
