Bombay High Court
Republican Employees FederationversusPune Mahanagar Parivahan Mahamandal Ltd PMPML
- Decided
- Disposal
- Rejected
- Bench
- SANDEEP V MARNE
Holding
The Industrial Court correctly allowed the impleadment of Respondent No. 2 Union; the High Court will not interfere.
Summary
The petitioner, PMPML Rashtrawadi General Kamgar Union, filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practices in connection with promotions of its members and sought a declaration that the promotion process was proper. Respondent No. 2, the Republican Employees Federation, applied to be impleaded, claiming it represents a majority of PMPML employees and contends that the promotions were granted outside seniority rules. The Industrial Court allowed the impleadment, reasoning that the dispute essentially involved two groups of employees over the same promotion posts and that the employer should act as a neutral spectator. The High Court affirmed that the impleadment was appropriate to ensure a comprehensive adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Consequently, the writ petition challenging the Industrial Court’s order was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether Respondent No. 2 Union can be impleaded in the unfair labour practice proceeding concerning promotions.
- Whether impleadment is necessary to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and ensure proper adjudication of seniority disputes.
- Whether the Industrial Court’s order granting impleadment is subject to interference by the High Court.
Subjects
- unfair labour practice
- impleadment
- seniority dispute
- industrial court
- multiplicity of proceedings
- union representation
- promotion
Judgment
Vaishnavi 4-WP-8241-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8241 OF 2026
PMPML Rashtrawadi Maharashtra
General Kamgar Union ...Petitioner
V/s.
Pmpml ...Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8421 OF 2026
Republican Employees Federation ...Petitioner
V/s.
Pune Mahanagar Parivahan
Mahamandal Ltd. PMPML ...Respondent
________________
Mr. Mandar Limaye i/b Ms. Shraddha D. Sawant, for Petitioner.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 06 AUGUST 2026
P.C.:
1) By this Petition, Petitioner-Union challenges order dated 6 May
2026 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Pune, allowing
Application at Exhibit UA-1 filed by Respondent No. 2-Union for
impleadment and directing impleadment of Respondent No.2-Union as
Respondent No. 2 to the Complaint.
2) I have heard Mr. Limaye, the learned counsel appearing for
Petitioner and have considered submissions canvassed by him.
Page No.1 of 3
06 August 2026
Vaishnavi 4-WP-8241-2026
3) The Petitioner-Union has filed complaint of unfair labour practice
challenging the report of the Inquiry Committee, which is constituted to
enquire into correctness of promotions granted to the members of the
Petitioner-Union. The Petitioner-Union has also sought a declaration
that the procedure followed while promoting its members is proper and
that there is no necessity of inquiring into validity of those promotions.
4) Respondent No. 2 is also a Union claiming to be representing
majority of the employees working in PMPML. It is claimed in the
application that Respondent No. 2-Union has made several
representations for the purpose of cancellation of promotions granted to
the members of Petitioner-Union. There are specific averments in the
application that promotions are granted dehors the seniority. An
apprehension is also expressed that the employer, PMPML, may not show
much interest in opposing the Complaint. On these grounds,
impleadement was sought by Respondent No. 2.
5) In my view, Industrial Court has rightly allowed intervention
application of Respondent No. 2. It appears that one of the issues
involved before the Industrial Court is about seniority of employees. In a
typical seniority dispute, the role of an employer is that of a neutral
spectator. The real contest is between two groups of employees. In the
present case, only one group of employees is in the litigation and now
entry of rival group of employees is permitted. This would enable the
Court to properly adjudicate the issue about validity of promotion. In my
view therefore, impleadment of Respondent No. 2-Union appears to be
proper.
Page No.2 of 3
06 August 2026
Vaishnavi 4-WP-8241-2026
6) The impleadment is also necessary for the purpose of avoiding
multiplicity of proceedings. If Petitioner-Union succeeds in its Complaint
and secures a declaration about validity of promotions of its members,
such decision would not bind members of Respondent No. 2-Union. Then
Respondent No. 2-Union may file separate proceedings challenging
promotions of members of the Petitioner-Union. Such a course of action
is neither advisable nor appropriate. In my view therefore, impleadment
of Respondent No. 2-Union avoids multiplicity of litigation between the
parties.
7) Reliance is placed by Mr. Limaye on the judgment of Apex Court
in Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and Ors1. The Apex Court has laid down
twin tests of (i) right to relief against a party and (ii) non passing of
effective decree on account of absence of a party. In the present case, the
members of Respondent No. 2-Union claim right to promotions which
are granted to the members of the Petitioner-Union. Thus, there is direct
fight between two groups of employees calming promotion against same
posts. Therefore, members of the Respondent No. 2-Union are necessary
parties to the Complaint. The Industrial Court has rightly allowed the
Impleadment Application. There is no warrant for interference in the
impugned order.
8) The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
1 (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 733
Page No.3 of 3
06 August 2026
Checking your session…