- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (for short - Tribunal) dated 30.8.2002 by which the application of the petitioner filed under Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, was dismissed. This application was moved on the premise that the petitioner was appointed with the respondent establishment on 12.8.93. His services were illegally terminated on 31.8.94. When the Central Government referred this industrial dispute, M/s. I.B.P. Co. Ltd., Bhiwari, Distt. Alwar was impleaded as a party thereto. Head office and the registered office of the company have got full and effective control over their branch office at Bhiwari. Several notices sent to the Bhiwari unit remained unserved. Eventually it turned out that Bhiwari branch itself has been closed down. Since the company at Bombay is controlling unit of Bhiwari, in the absence of their impleadment, the award that may be ultimately passed would remain un - enforced and it was therefore prayed that the IBP Company Ltd., Shiveri (East), Mumbai and M/s. IBP Co. Ltd., Calcutta be impleaded as necessary party.
(2.) Shri Suresh Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the aforesaid arguments and submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly rejected the application on the premise that the petitioner was not able to show as to how the head office and registered office exercised control over the employees of the non-applicant establishment.
(3.) Shri B.C. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that petitioner was appointed only by Bhiwari unit and his services were also terminated by Bhiwari unit. Head office and registered office had no control over the petitioner and that the petitioner never impleaded the head office and registered office as party respondents before the Conciliation Officer. Obviously, therefore they could not be joined as respondents in the proceedings before the Tribunal. It was argued that the Tribunal has taken the correct view. Even otherwise, similar matters have been dismissed by this Court entertaining the claim of the identically situated workman, therefore, it would be an exercise in futility to now implead the head office and registered office and require the Tribunal to further proceed in the matter.;