UCO BANK Vs. S Y PADMANABHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed as against the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam, in allowing the application filed by the 3rd party applicant for impleading him as additional party in the Original Application (OA). THE party impleaded is a worker in the Premier Cable Company Ltd., in liquidation. THE Bank resisted the petition. THE petition was allowed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, and the proposed party was added as defendant No. 11. Aggrieved against that order the Bank has come forward with this appeal.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant Bank submitted that the party impleaded as D-11 is a worker and he cannot be impleaded as a party in the petition and the wages to the worker also can be worked out and the amount can be set apart and paid to the workers during recovery proceedings and now there is no necessity to implead the worker as a party in the OA which is purely a proceeding between the lender Bank and the borrower and the worker is not a necessary part in the OA.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant Bank submitted that the Company is under liquidation and it is wound-up and the Official Liquidator is there and he is added as 9th defendant in the OA and the workers union is also added as 10th defendant in the OA and they will take care of the interest of the workers and the workers' remedies will be worked out by them and appropriate relief would be granted to the workers in the recovery proceedings and appropriate orders can also be passed in the OA. Since the Official Liquidator and the workers union are the 9th and 10th defendants in the OA, it goes without saying that they would take care of the interest of the workers and they will have to safeguard the interest of the workers.