DR. RAMESH Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition pertains to an industrial dispute. This writ petition has been filed by the management assailing an Award dated 29.1.2004 made in I.D. No. 77 of 2000 by the Labour Court in Trichy partly in favour of the workman, who is respondent No.2 before me.

(2.) The petitioner before me has been described as 'Dr. Ramesh, Dr. Ramanathan Memorial Medical Centre', Lalgudi. A perusal of the writ affidavit sworn to by Dr. Ramesh does not reveal the constitution of 'Dr. Ramanathan Memorial Medical Centre'. However, in the writ affidavit, particularly, in paragraph 2, Dr. Ramesh, deponent, refers to the said medical centre as 'my hospital'. Therefore, I proceed on the basis that 'Dr. Ramanathan Memorial Medical Centre' is a proprietary concern and that Dr. Ramesh is its Proprietor.

(3.) Be that as it may, for the sake of convenience and clarity, the writ petitioner before me is hereinafter referred to as 'Management'. The Labour Court, Trichy, which passed the Award dated 29.1.2004 in I.D. No. 77 of 2000, which is being assailed in the instant writ petition, has been arrayed as respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 has been duly served on 6.7.2004 (as per registry endorsement). In my considered opinion, in cases of this nature, the Labour Court, which passes the Award, need not be arrayed as a respondent unless malafides are attributed to the Presiding Officer and for this proposition, I draw inspiration from the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court (presided by Honourable Mr. Justice A.P. Shah as His Lordship then was) authored by Dr. S. Muralidhar, J., dated 3rd Sept., 2008 in LPA No.313 of 2007, wherein it has been laid down that a judicial or quasi judicial body or Tribunal whose order is challenged in a writ petition (and thereafter possibly in appeal) ought not to itself be impleaded as a party respondent and the only exception would be where malafides are alleged against any individual member of such authority or Tribunal in which case again it would be such member, and not the authority / Tribunal, who may be impleaded as a respondent. This position is also well settled by the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur [(1999) 2 SCC 577] and Fakeerappa Vs. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory [(2004) 2 SCC 473].