ABED ULLAH v. CHEMIST AND DRUGGIST ASSOIATION OF ASSAM

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN Date : 15.07.2025 ORDER Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. P. Sengupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. B.D. Deka, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

2. This interlocutory application, under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC, read with Section 151 of the CPC, is preferred by the applicant for allowing him to be added as a party respondent in CRP (IO) No. 85/2025.

3. Mr. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, submits that the opposite party No. 1/Chemist and Druggist Association of Assam (‘Association’, for short) had challenged an order dated 21.02.2025, passed by the learned Labour Court, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, in Misc. Case No. 1/2023, arising out of Misc. Appeal No. 1/2023, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the applicant found that the opposite party No. 1/the Association was not registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1870, but was registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and the signature of the applicant given in the meeting held on 12.08.2018, at Hotel Minerva, Guwahati, was misused by the office bearers of the opposite party No. 1/the Association. Mr. Dutta also submits that thereafter, the applicant herein had reported the illegalities committed by the opposite party No. 1/the Association to the Registrar of Trade Union and also contended to struck off its name from the register.

3.1. Mr. Dutta also submits that thereafter, the Registrar of Trade Union had issued a show cause notice and after hearing the opposite party No. 1/the Page No.# 3/7 Association, had passed the order dated 30.08.2023, and thereby, cancelled the registration of the opposite party No. 1/the Association. Mr. Dutta further submits that being aggrieved by the order dated 30.08.2023, passed by the Registrar of Trade Union, the opposite party No. 1/the Association, had preferred an appeal before the learned Labour Court, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, being Misc. Appeal No. 1/2023, and along with the appeal, filed an application for staying the order dated 30.08.2023, and thereafter, the learned Labour Court, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, vide order dated 07.09.2023, had passed an interim stay on the order dated 30.08.2023, considering the fact that the opposite party No. 1/the Association had to take part in the election process of National Trade Union. However, the said interim order was subsequently vacated with immediate effect, vide order dated 21.02.2025 and the Misc. Case No. 1/2023, was accordingly disposed of. Mr. Dutta further submits that against the order of vacating the interim order dated 07.09.2023, vide order dated

21.02.2025, passed by the learned Labour Court, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, the opposite party No. 1/the Association had filed a civil revision petition, being CRP(IO) No. 85/2025 before this Court, and that the opposite party No. 1/the Association had not impleaded the present applicant as a party in the said CRP (I.O) and therefore, this present application is preferred under Order 1 Rule 10(2), read with Section 151 of the CPC, and that the present applicant though not a necessary party as no right of relief has been claimed against him, yet, he is a proper party and as such, Mr. Dutta has contended to allow this application.

4. Per contra, Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has vehemently opposed the application. Mr. Deka has pointed out that in the process of cancellation of the registration, under Section 10 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, the satisfaction of the Registrar that the certificate has been obtained Page No.# 4/7 by fraud or mistake, is sufficient. Referring to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.G. D’souza vs. Poona Employees Union and Anr., reported in (2015) 2 SCC 526, Mr. Deka submits that in Section 10 of the Trade Unions Act, there is no mention about cancellation of the registration of the trade union on application by any other person and the same permits the authority to cancel the registration of the trade union if it is obtained by fraud or mistake, but does not permit the authority to cancel the certificate of registration if the same is granted by mistake due to incorrect assessment or non-application of mind or mechanical act on the part of the authority. Further, referring to another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurmit Singh Bhatia vs. Kiran Kant Robinson and Ors., reported in (2020) 13 SCC 773, Mr. Deka submits that in order to invoke Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC to add a party who is not made a party in the suit by the plaintiff shall not arise unless a party proposed to be added has direct and legal interest in the controversy involved in the suit. Mr. Deka further submits that in the case of Gurmit Singh Bhatia (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court, referring to its earlier decision in the case of Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 733, it was held that two tests are to be satisfied for determining the question as to who is a necessary party, and the tests are – (i) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings; (ii) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party.

4.1. Mr. Deka further submits that in the connected civil revision petition, the petitioner therein has not claimed any relief against the present applicant and in his absence also an effective order/decree can be passed, and that the present applicant is no longer in the Association and as such, he is not a party in the Page No.# 5/7 proceeding and at best, the applicant may be a witness in the said proceeding. Under such circumstances, Mr. Deka has contended to dismiss this application.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submits that the petitioner in the connected civil revision petition had fraudulently obtained registration from the Registrar of Trade Union and regarding the fraudulent activities of the petitioner, the applicant herein had informed the Registrar and thereafter, issuing notice and hearing the parties, the Registrar had cancelled the registration. Mr. Chakraborty also submits that the opposite party No. 2 has filed one interlocutory application for vacating the interim order passed by this Court and in the said application, notice has already been issued to the parties.

6. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the application and the documents placed on record, and also gone through the decisions referred by Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1, and I find substance in the submission of Mr. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant.

7. The law regarding impleadment of necessary party and proper party is well settled in plethora of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the case of Vidur Impex & Traders (P) Ltd. v. Tosh Apartments (P) Ltd., reported in (2012) 8 SCC 384, Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue as under:- “41. Though there is apparent conflict in the observations made in some of the aforementioned judgments, the broad principles which should govern disposal of an application for impleadment are:- Page No.# 6/7

41.1. The court can, at any stage of the proceedings, either on an application made by the parties or otherwise, direct impleadment of any person as party, who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the court is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. 41.2. A necessary party is the person who ought to be joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed by the court. 41.3. A proper party is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all matters and issues, though he may not be a person in favour of or against whom a decree is to be made. 41.4. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court does not have the jurisdiction to order his impleadment against the wishes of the plaintiff. 41.5. In a suit for specific performance, the court can order impleadment of a purchaser whose conduct is above board, and who files application for being joined as party within reasonable time of his acquiring knowledge about the pending litigation. 41.6. However, if the applicant is guilty of contumacious conduct or is beneficiary of a clandestine transaction or a transaction made by the owner of the suit property in violation of the restraint order passed by the court or the application is unduly delayed then the court will be fully justified in declining the prayer for impleadment.”

8. In the instant case, indisputably no relief is being claimed against the present applicant and in his absence also an effective order can be passed. However, it Page No.# 7/7 appears that upon the information being given by the present applicant, the registration of the opposite party No.1 herein was cancelled by the Registrar of the Trade Union. As submitted, the applicant was the ex-member of the Association and he also alleged that his signature, given in the meeting held on

12.08.2018, at Hotel Minerva, Guwahati, was misused by the office bearers of the opposite party No. 1/the Association and fraudulently obtained registration from the Registrar of Trade Union and regarding the fraudulent activities of the petitioner, the applicant herein had informed the Registrar and thereafter, issuing notice and hearing the parties, the Registrar had cancelled the registration. In the given factual backdrop, though the applicant appears to be not a necessary party, yet it appears that he is a proper party, whose presence would ensure that the CRP(I/O) is disposed of completely and effectively and his presence would ensures that the decision is more comprehensive, in view of sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 of the CPC, the applicant herein appears to be a proper party, and as such, his presence will ensure a more complete decision.

9. Under the given facts and circumstances, this Court finds sufficient merit in this application and accordingly, the same stands allowed. The applicant, namely, Md. Abed Ullah, be impleaded as respondent No. 2 in CRP(IO) No. 85/2025. The petitioner shall file amended cause title within three working days from today.

10. In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant