An employee may seek impleadment in a pending industrial reference, subject to the Tribunal’s merits-based determination.

The petitioner, a member of the Gujarat Labour Union and a guard engaged by ONGC, Ahmedabad, raised an industrial dispute on 2 December 2022 seeking regularisation and consequential benefits.

Subsequently, another union, Bharatiya Mazdoor Parishad, raised a similar dispute, which was registered as Reference No. 42 of 2022 and was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad.

The appropriate Government declined to make a separate reference of the petitioner’s dispute by order dated 29 September 2023, primarily because the same reliefs were already the subject matter of the pending reference.

The petitioner challenged that decision under Article 226 of the Constitution and alternatively sought permission to join the pending reference proceedings.

Whether the appropriate Government’s refusal to make a separate reference of the petitioner’s industrial dispute, on the ground that a similar dispute was already pending as Reference No. 42 of 2022, was legally sustainable.

Whether the petitioner could seek impleadment or participation in the pending reference proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal.

The Court applied Sections 10(5) and 18(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Section 10(5) empowers the appropriate Government to add establishments, groups, or classes of establishments likely to be interested in or affected by an industrial dispute to an existing reference, either when the reference is made or during its pendency, but before the award is submitted.

Section 18(3)(b) empowers the Industrial Tribunal to summon or add parties where their presence is necessary for an effective and enforceable adjudication; however, this power cannot materially enlarge the scope of the reference, since the Tribunal’s jurisdiction derives from the Government’s order of reference.

The Court relied on Hochtief Gammon v. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa & Ors., 1964 SCC OnLine SC 148, which held that additional unions or parties may be joined where the existing parties do not adequately represent the relevant interests and their presence is necessary for effective adjudication.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s demand for regularisation and benefits substantially overlapped with the dispute already pending in Reference No. 42 of 2022.

Applying Hochtief Gammon, the Court accepted that the appropriate course was for the petitioner to approach the Industrial Tribunal and seek impleadment in the pending reference, rather than insist upon a separate reference concerning the same reliefs.

The Tribunal was directed to consider such an application independently, after hearing all concerned parties and in accordance with law.

The High Court expressly refrained from deciding the merits of the petitioner’s claim or the pending reference.

The petitioner was permitted to apply before the Industrial Tribunal for joining Reference No. 42 of 2022.

The Tribunal was directed to decide the application on its merits and in accordance with law, preferably within six months from its submission.

The High Court did not adjudicate upon the merits of the regularisation claim or the pending reference proceedings.