D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) A reference was made before the Labour Court as to whether termination of services of the workmen were Justified. The employer was represented by some officers. Subsequently, it appears that those officers were transferred. Therefore, the employer itself was directed to be impleaded as party to the proceeding. This order dated 17.1.1998 is being assailed by Shri G. D. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the Labour Court has no power available under the Code of Civil Procedure to implead a party in the proceeding except as provided in Section 6 (c) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and Rule 21 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules. According to him, only those provisions of the Civil Procedure Code as enumerated in Section 6 (c) and Rule 21, no other provisions of Civil Procedure Code are available to be exercised by the Labour Court. Therefore, the employer who have been added by name cannot be substituted nor the petitioner could be added as party.
(2.) 1 have heard Mr. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.
(3.) In my view, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not stand to reason. Inasmuch as having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the reference is between the workmen and employer who have been described as Shri P. K. Khatri, Manager, Ferozabad Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh and Shri R. P. Yadav, Plant Incharge, Ferozabad Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh and one Shri Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Contractor, Ferozabad Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh. They were alleged to be representing the employers. Shri P. K. Khatri and Shri R. P. Yadav were not impleadcd in person but as representing Ferozabad Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh in their capacity of officers of the said Sangh. In fact, the employer was sought to be represented through its officers. Admittedly, these officers have now been transferred to somewhere else. Therefore, though the order proceeds on the basis of impleadment of Ferozabad Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh but in fact the same is only an amendment. In fact Ferozabad Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh was already party to the proceeding who was shown to be represented by those two officers of the said Sangh. Therefore, it is not an impleadment of Ferozabad Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh afresh. It was only a description of the same party without being represented by those two particular officers who had already been transferred and in fact representing the Sangh. Rule 12 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules provides the procedure before the Labour Court or Tribunal wherein it is provided in Proviso to sub-rule (1) where the Labour Court or Tribunal considers it necessary may.....(e) allow at any stage of the proceedings, amendment of such statement to the extent as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real issue included in the order of reference. Thus this proviso empowers the tribunal if it thinks to allow amendment for the purpose of determining the real issue included in the order of reference. The real issue that was included in the reference is the termination of the services of the workmen employed in the Ferozabad Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh. Therefore, in order to determine the real issue as the officers representing the Sangh were transferred, if the Sangh is described in its name, in that event it is only an amendment and not an impleadment of new party. Inasmuch as Ferozabad Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh was already a party in the proceedings. Unless the description is properly described, it is difficult to proceed with the proceedings and the Presiding Officer thought it fit in the facts and circumstances of the case to describe the employer in that particular manner. It cannot be said it is without jurisdiction.;