Faced with the situation & Anr. v. K.S. Radhakrishnan & Ors.

Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the workman relying upon Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs. 4 Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and another, AIR 1963 SC 786, contends that the Tribunal or Authority whose order is sought to be quashed are necessary parties when such orders are challenged in a writ petition. The contention again is fallacious. A Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in a latter judgment in Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others, AIR 1964 SC 477, in para-19 observed: (cid:147)It may be that in such proceedings, the Authority and the Appellate Tribunal are proper and necessary parties, but unless allegations are made against them which need a reply from them, it is not usual for the authorities to be represented by lawyers in Court. In ordinary cases, their position is like that of courts or other Tribunals against whose decisions writ proceedings are filed; they are not interested in the merits of the dispute in any sense, and so, their representation by lawyers in such proceedings is wholly unnecessary and even inappropriate(cid:148).

In the present case the Presiding Judge of the Labour Court was not a necessary party, more-so, when the Presiding Judge is a Judicial Officer of the rank of the District Judge. The Apex Court in Savitri Devi vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur and others, (1999)2 SCC 577, deprecated the practice to array any Judicial Officer as party in the writ petition before the High Court and the Supreme Court. The following observations of the Supreme Court in para-14 are apposite: 5 (cid:147)14.Before parting with this case, it is necessary for us to point out one aspect of the matter which is rather disturbing. In the writ petition filed in the High Court as well as the special leave petition filed in this Court, the District Judge, Gorakhpur and the 4th Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gorakhpur are shown as respondents and in the special leave petition, they are shown as contesting respondents. There was no necessity for impleading the judicial officers who disposed of the matter in a civil proceeding when the writ petition was filed in the High Court; nor is there any justification for impleading them as parties in the special leave petition and describing them as contesting respondents.

We do not approve of the course adopted by petitioner unnecessary disturbance to the functions of the judicial officers concerned. They cannot be in any way equated to the officials of the Government. It is high time that the practice of impleading judicial officers disposing of civil proceedings as parties to writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or special leave petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was stopped. We are strongly deprecating such a practice(cid:148). (emphasis given) It is settled position of law that the Presiding Judge of the Labour Court and for that reason any Judicial Authority is not necessary party unless malafide is alleged 6 against such Authority. In the present case malafide is not alleged against the Presiding Judge of the Labour Court. It is only that the present petitioner-employer had a grievance against the award passed by the Presiding Judge of the Labour Court for the redressal of which the employer invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned award made by the Presiding Judge, H.P. Labour Court, Shimla, is set aside. The claim of the respondent-employee is dismissed. The Reference shall stand answered accordingly. No costs. March 2, 2006. (aks) ( K C Sood ) Judge.