A.L. Bahri, J. - (1.) The award of the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, dated September l, 1992 (Annexure P-2) is under challenge in this writ petition filed by Arjun Lal and others Presiding Officer and others For the Petitioners For respondents No. 2 & 3 For respondents No. 4 to 7 and others. In order to appreciate the point raised in the petition, brief narration of facts is considered necessary. Respondents Nos. 4 to 7, Arun Kumar and others, were working as Peons-cum-Chowkidars with respondent No. 3 Market Committee Guru Harsahai. They were appointed on September 30, 1985. Their services were terminated on December 10,1985, that they raised an industrial dispute, which was finally decided by the Labour Court on March 7,1988. Copy of the award of the Labour Court is Annexure P-L, The termination of services of respondent Nos. 4 to 7, Arun Kumar and others, was held to be valid. Subsequently they raised on industrial dispute in January, 1990, that the Market Committee did not offer the posts to them but otherwise filled up the same by appointing Arjun Led and others, petitioner Nos. 1 to 3. This dispute was again referred to the Industrial Tribunal and was finally resulted in an award dated September l,1992(copy Annexure P-2). At this stage, it may be observed that the award has been made exparte against the Market Committee and the present petitioners were not impleaded as parties in that dispute. The petitioners Arjun Lal and others were appointed as Peons-cum-Chowkidars in the year 1986-87, i.e. petitioners Arjun Lal and Satish Kumar were appointed on June 2,1986 and Gurbachan Singh was appointed on January 9, 1987. The petitioners claim that as per dispute referred, they were the persons to be directly affected by the award and were thus necessary parties to be impleaded as such and are not thus bound by the ex parte award resulting in their loosing the job ultimately. Another plea taken is that the petitioners were appointed against such posts which were duly advertised. Such an advertisements was published in the newspaper on May 28, 1986(copy Annexure P-3), which should be treated as sufficient notice of filing up of the posts by the Market Committee and offer to respondents Nos. 4 to 7, who could themselves again apply for the posts or get the posts in view of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
(2.) The Market Committee is supporting the petitioners whereas Arun Kumar and others, private respondents, are contesting the claim of the petitioners.
(3.) After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the view that principles of natural justice required that the petitioners should have been impleaded as parties and given notice of the dispute referred to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 18(3) (B) of the Industrial Disputes Act. When the dispute was raised, it was specifically mentioned that the posts against which the present petitioners were appointed, should have been offered to the private respondents, Arun Kumar and others. Even otherwise the effect of the award Annexure P-2 would be to accommodate the private respondents, Arun Kumar and others, and the present petitioners have to make room for them. The present petitioners are also in service since 1986-87 and the least what was expected of the respondents or the Tribunal was to have the petitioners as parties in the dispute and then finally decide the same. Reading of Section 18(3)(b) of the Act would show that award of the Tribunal would be binding on all the parties, who had been summoned to appear in the proceedings. It is in this context that the Tribunal should have impleaded the present petitioners as parties, otherwise the award could not be made to affect their rights.;