NATARAJAN U R Vs. P O LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition seeks to quash the order of the first respondent, dated July 7, 1994 passed in LA. No. 95 of 1993 in I.D. No. 10 of 1992, rejecting the petitioner's application for impleading respondent Nos. 3 to 6 as parties to the dispute in I.D. No. 10 of 1992.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he was employed in the second respondent firm between May 1, 1985 and October 8, 1986, that on termination of his employment on October 8, 1996, he raised an industrial dispute which came to be referred for adjudication before the first respondent by G.O. Ms. No. 111(2), dated May 25, 1987 as I.D. No. 144 of 1987, which was renumbered as I.D. No. 10 of 1992. It is contended that when the dispute was taken up for trial, the managing partner representing the second respondent deposed before the Court that the firm was dissolved on March 30, 1990 and thereafter the petitioner was obliged to file an application in LA. No. 95 of 1993 for impleading the other partners of the firm namely, respondent Nos. 3 to 5 as party respondents in I.D. No. 10 of 1992. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the petitioner claimed that the order of appointment, Exhibit W2, was in fact signed by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 along with the managing partner.

(3.) The said application was resisted at the instance of the respondents contending that since the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were not made parties before the Conciliation Officer, there is no scope to implead them in the dispute by the first respondent. The said stand of the second respondent found favour with the first respondent which dismissed the petitioner's application in LA. No. 95 of 1993.