Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.

1.Since in this bunch of appeals common question of law and fact has been raised, they are heard together and decided by this common order.

These appeals have been filed by the appellant - M/s Arafat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. against the orders dated 08.08.2019 and 28.2.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge and the learned Industrial Tribunal, Kota (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the learned Single Judge had dismissed all the writ petitions and upheld the order passed by the learned Tribunal.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 M/s Jay Kay Enterprises Ltd. filed an application on 14.6.2017 for impleadment of M/s Arafat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arfat Nagar, Udhyog Marg, Kota as a party respondent stating therein that the respondent No.2, through the application, presented the copy of the documents including its declaration of respondent company as a sick industrial company, procedure of its re-transmission and the compromise between the respondent and the Union of its institutions on 9.10.2009 and the order of AAFIR dated 7.1.2005, which were to be taken on record in this case. As per the respondent's application, the copy of the above mentioned documents have been taken on record in this case. The cost of compromise, which took place between workers and the respondent on 9.10.2002 and 22.10.2002, was accepted to be paid by M/s Arafat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. The above compromise is effective and compulsive on all the workers under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. All Branches of the respondent company situated in Kota and assets of the respondent, have been submitted to M/s Arafat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. in January 2005 and no industrial or other activities of the respondent have been recorded after 1997. The respondent in its application has clearly mentioned that the respondent company is not capable of bearing any financial load and responsibilities in relation to the workers, have been granted to M/s Arafat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd., to whom all the Kota Branches of the respondents and the lease of land have already been handed over. In such situation, in this case also M/s Arafat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. which is an important party has to be made a party for the complete disposal of the case.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Shri R.K. Agarwal appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 08.08.2019 passed by the learned single Judge and also the order dated 28.2.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal, are perverse and contrary to the material available on record. He submits that no demand was ever raised against the appellant company. The demand was raised by the respondent No.1, M/s J.K. Staff Association against respondent No.2, M/s Jay Kay Enterprises Ltd. The State of Rajasthan referred the dispute to the learned Tribunal vide its Notification dated 21.4.1990 which was amended by correction letter dated 10.10.1990 against the respondent No.2 M/s Jay Kay Enterprises Ltd. which was pending. The learned Tribunal had passed an order on 28.2.2018 to be impleaded as party respondent to the Reference which was totally without jurisdiction.

4. The learned Senior Counsel Shri R.K. Agarwal further submits that the learned Tribunal had not considered that the Tripartite Settlement was entered on 9.10.2002 and 22.10.2002 and the present case is pending since 2002 but no such objection was ever raised for years together by the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 before the learned Tribunal.

5. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the learned Single Judge had erred in not considering that the learned Tribunal had erred in misinterpreting the provisions of Tripartite Agreement and Advertisement dated 7.2.2018. He submits that the appellant company had made payments in compliance of the provisions of the Tripartite Agreement. He further submits that in the present case, the liability was still to be determined against the respondent No.2, M/s Jay Kay Enterprises Ltd.

6. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the learned Single Judge had failed to consider that the learned Tribunal had to confine itself to the scope of the subject matter of the Reference and it could not travel beyond the same. He submits that the learned Tribunal had no jurisdiction and authority to add or implead any party or enlarge the subject matter of the dispute.

7. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal had amended the Reference while impleading the appellant company as a party in the present case which is totally without jurisdiction. He further submits that the learned Single Judge had erred in coming to the conclusion that Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 carries the clear legislative intention of powers given to the Labour Court to implead any party as an employer.

8. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge had erred in coming to the conclusion that Tripartite Agreement was very wide covering almost all the rights of the workmen. Therefore, the appeals be allowed and the order dated 08.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge and also the learned Tribunal's order dated 28.2.2018 be set aside.

9. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Shri Kamlakar Sharma appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel Shri R.K. Agarwal. He submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge as well as in the order of the learned Tribunal.

10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by both the learned counsel and with their assistance, perused the impugned orders and the material available on record.

11. Learned Single Judge in its order dated 08.08.2019 elaborately discussed the arguments and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Single Judge in its order dated 08.08.2019 in paras 21 and 22 observed as under :

"21. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case as well as the precedent law cited by the counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that Section 18 of the Act of 1947 in itself carries the clear legislative intention of the power given to the Labour Court to implead any party as an employer, which shall include his heirs, successors and assigns in respect of the establishment to which dispute relates. In the present case, it is not (D.B. SAW/1409/2019 and 4 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) disputed that the establishment in question is the one which relates to the dispute being adjudicated by the reference in question. The scope of reference is right of the workmen arising out of the establishment in question, which was with the respondent company and now has been passed to the present petitioner in accordance with the tripartite agreement. The tripartite agreement is very wide and is covering almost all the rights of the workmen, but even if, there is any restriction, which is in the tripartite agreement, it cannot be read contrary to the spirit of Section 18(3)(c) of the Act of 1947 and thus, the petitioner being in command over the establishment in question shall have to participate in the adjudication so as to ensure that if it wants to defend against the liability in question, then it may take all necessary steps to defend itself against the liability in question. This Court has also seen the precedent law cited by counsel for the parties in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has only stated that the relevancy of the party in relation to the adjudication in question, being necessary party and/or proper party, has to be seen before the party is impleaded. The precedent law regarding the question whether the interim order passed by the Labour Court can be challenged in writ jurisdiction or not, is very clear that the challenge, if given by the employer, cannot be maintained as he can afford to wait for final adjuidcation, but challenge can definitely be given by the workman, if he is suffering some prejudice. All the case laws cited have been considered. The impugned order passed by the Labour Court impleading the (D.B. SAW/1409/2019 and 4 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 07/01/2020 at 01:04:39 PM) (25 of 25) [CW12663/ 2018] petitioner as a party is a lawful order as the present petitioner is admittedly in control of the establishment in question and thus, the extent of the liability of the petitioner can be decided only after it is impleaded as a party.

22. In view of the above discussions, the writ petitions do not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, the same are, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner on merits and the liability shall be ascertained by the Labour Court during the adjudication strictly in accordance with law."

12. The learned Single Judge in its order observed that the Tripartite Agreement was very wide covering almost all the rights of the workmen. But even if; there was any restriction which was in the Tripartite Agreement, it could not be read contrary to the spirit of

section 18 (3) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, the appellant being in command over the establishment in question would have to participate in the adjudication so as to ensure that if it was to defend against the liability in question, then it might take all necessary steps to defend itself against the liability in question. The impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is just and fair and is for the benefit of the appellant. Therefore, the learned Single Judge as well as the learned Tribunal had not committed any mistake to implead the appellant company as a party to the Reference. 13. We are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge and also the learned Tribunal had not committed any illegality and infirmity in its order. So, in these circumstances, we do not find any merit in these appeals and they deserve to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the appeals along with stay applications are dismissed. 15. A copy of this order be placed in other connected appeals.