VATANAKURUSSI K VISWANATHAN Vs. KVAERNER POWERGAS INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of the present chamber summons filed by the third party. The applicants herein pray that they should be impleaded as party defendants in this suit. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff who claims to be the beneficiary of the DGP Staff Education Benefit Trust, DGP Staff General Benefit Trust, DGP Staff Medical Benefit Trust and DGP Staff Recreation Benefit Trust. He claims that being beneficiary, he is entitled for certain reliefs as claimed in the suit. The reliefs claimed in the suit reads thus :

(2.) THE plaintiff has impleaded trustees of the trust as defendant Nos.2 to 4 in the present suit. However, the applicants herein have approached this court not only disputing the fact that the plaintiff is beneficiary of the respective trust, but have asserted that the plaintiff has ceased to be an employee of the defendant No.1 Company since 1996 for which reason he is not a beneficiary under the respective trust. On the other hand, the applicants and similarly placed persons, in all 180 persons, who are presently in the employment of the defendant No.1 company are beneficiaries of the respective trusts being permanent employment of the defendant No.1 Company. The applicant would then contend that for the nature of reliefs claimed by the plaintiff, namely, declaration and the consequential relief of directions to defendant Nos.2 to 4 in terms of prayer clause (e) and (h), the applicants who are the real beneficiaries of the respective trust are likely to be directly affected not only with regard to the past benefits received by the applicants from the respective trust, as also the future benefits for which they have legal rights. It is relevant to mention that in the application as filed, the applicants assert that all the persons similarly placed with the applicants have authorised the applicants to pursue this application to espouse their cause as well. On this assertion, the present application has been filed for the following reliefs.

(3.) HAVING gone through the pleadings and considering the rival submissions, it is seen that the applicants claim that they are the permanent employees of the defendant no.1 Company. Being permanent employees of the defendant No.1 company, they are the beneficiaries of the respective trust. It is not necessary for me to examine the question whether the plaintiff is a beneficiary as claimed or otherwise, as contended by the applicants herein. Suffice it to observe that as the applicants are beneficiaries of the respective trust, they have direct interest in the issues raised in the suit especially in the context of the reliefs in terms of prayer clause (e) and (h). The decision in the suit on the issue atleast in relation to reliefs in terms of clause (e) and (h), though intended against the trustees and the respective trusts who are defendants in the suit, would bind the applicants and similarly placed persons. In other words, those questions cannot be effectually and completely settled unless the applicants were to be made parties to the suit. For, the applicants are directly and legally interested in the settlement of the said issues. In Prayer clause (e), it is prayed by the plaintiff that decree directing defendant Nos.2 to 4 or any other person as may be appointed as trustees in their stead to pay the plaintiff an amount of Rs.8,70,000.00 along with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the suit till payment and/or realization of the amount. This direction indeed would affect the corpus of the trust which, in turn, will impair the prospective legal rights of the real beneficiaries of the trust, including the applicants herein. In the same way, relief in terms of prayer clause (h), if granted, the trustees or Defendant Nos.2 to 4 will call upon the applicants and similarly placed persons to refund the amounts already received by them. The inevitable logic is that the applicants can legitimately contend that the litigation may lead to a result which will affect the legal rights of the applicants and similarly placed persons. If it is so, the action cannot be effectually and completely settled unless the applicants and similarly placed persons are parties to the suit.