MODH AND SONS Vs. SHRI MOHD AYUB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions involve common questions and therefore, they are being disposed of by common order.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to these revisions are that there was a firm styled as M/s. Mohammad & Sons, which was started somewhere in the year 1951 by Mohammad and his sons. It carried on the business of gypsum Non-petitioner Mohd. Ayub claims to be an employee of this firm. He filed several claims against the firm Mohammad & Sons before the Payment of Wages Authority, one claim being No. BWA 65/80 was for wages for February 1979 to December, 1979 and other claims 11 in number in all, and all these claims were consolidated. In some of them, the names of various parties of the firm Mohd. & Sons were stated and in some others only the name of the firm Mohd. & Sons was stated as the person responsible for payment of wages to the claimants. In the other claim No. PWD 65/80, name of the firm alone was mentioned in Column 3-C of the application. It appears that on 24. 4. 81, all these claims were dismissed in default. Shri Mohd. Ayub filed application for restoration of these claims, on 20. 5. 81, but the same also were dismissed in default. Thereafter, other applications for restoration of the said applications were filed on 4. 12. 81 and after contesting these applications were also dismissed on 31. 12. 83. Mohd. Ayub thereupon filed two appeals before the learned Additional District Judge, Nagour and in these two appeals, he only impleaded one Yusuf as respondent. He neither impleaded the firm M/s Mohd. & Sons nor any other partner thereof. Before the learned Additional District Judge, two applications were filed one by Abdul Waheed and the other by some of the other partners of the firm praying that they may be impleaded as respondents in the appeals since their interests were vitally effected. So far as Abdul Waheed is concerned, it was further stated that in a suit for rendition of accounts pending between the partners of the firm, Shri Abdul Waheed had been appointed as interim receiver by this Court on 5. 1, 82 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 86/86 and as a Receiver of the firm, he is interested in the disposal of the appeals. It was also stated that the only respondent, who had been impleaded in these appeals, viz. Shri Yusuf, was father-in-law of the appellant and there was collusion between the two and Shri Yusuf was bent upon harming the partners and helping his son-in-law. These applications appear to have been opposed by the appellant before the learned Additional District Judge and the learned Additional District Judge, by his order dated 30. 7. 87, dismissed these applications on the ground that there had been a change in the Constitution of the firm and that original firm Mohd. & Sons did not continue and had been dissolved. Therefore, its partners or the Receiver cannot be deemed to be necessary parties to the appeals. He was also of the opinion that the applications were belated. Aggrieved of the dismissal of these applications, these two revisions have been filed by the alleged partners as well as Abdul Waheed.

(3.) A contention has also been raised that the provisions of O. I, r. 10, C. P. C. are not applicable to the proceedings under Payment of Wages Act. In my opinion, this contention also is devoid of any substance. Once it is held that the first appellate court, from whose order, the revisions have been filed, is not persona designate, but, is court, the provisions of the C. P. C. clearly apply. In the second place, as already stated above, in the claims filed by the non-petitioner Shri Ayub, the persons apart from Shri Yusuf have also been made parties and described as persons responsible for payment of wages. Therefore, those persons were clearly necessary parties to the appeal also and even if for sake of argument it is held that O. I, r. 10, does not apply in terms, the principle underlying it will certainly apply. In these circumstances, I am firmly of the opinion that the learned lower court was not at all justified in refusing the application for impleading the applicants as parties to the appeal. However, it may be added that when the Receiver Shri Abdul Waheed has come-forward for being impleaded, he being the Receiver and representative of the firm, the other partners of the firm need not be impleaded, as they will be deemed to be represented by Shri Abdul Waheed.