Twelve respondents instituted a civil suit before the Senior Sub-Judge against the employer's action of their termination and retrenchment from service. The reliefs they claimed in the suit consists in the: Declaration t
CS Professional · Labour Laws & Practice · PYQS · June 2023
Twelve respondents instituted a civil suit before the Senior Sub-Judge against the employer's action of their termination and retrenchment from service. The reliefs they claimed in the suit consists in the: Declaration to the effect that the orders of their termination or retrenchment from service were illegal, and Entitlement against the retrenchment with back wages. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs-respondents were skilled workers working in a hydel project in Alandpur in various capacities such as T. Mate, Mixer Operator, Beldar etc. for more than 5 years and therefore as per the standing orders and the rules, they were regular employees of the defendants. It was alleged that the defendant-appellants did not maintain any seniority list of the workers and different categories of services on the said project and they arbitrarily removed the plaintiffs-respondents from service by obtaining their signatures on papers under coercion and force and also forcing them to accept payments. It was further alleged that the defendant-appellants while removing plaintiffs-respondents did not comply with seniority criteria. As a result, juniors were retained in service and seniors were retrenched. It was alleged that the action was discriminatory and contrary to law resulting in victimization. This claim of the plaintiffs-respondents was contested by the defendant-appellants on the grounds that common suit could not have been filed since the cause of action of each defendant was distinct and separate; the plaintiffs-respondents were appointed on purely temporary basis and after the completion of the project, their services were validly terminated. On the contrary, the plaintiffs-respondents claimed injunction and reinstatement. On the diligent perusal of the above case, answer the following questions referring to legal provisions and decided case law, if any: Do you agree that the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties? State reasons.
Answer & Explanation:
Regarding the issue of misjoinder of parties, where in a suit, there are two or more defendants and two or more cause of action, the suit will be bad for misjoinder of parties. In the given case, the defendant-appellants firstly urged that the common suit was bad since the cause of action of each of them was distinct and separate. It was urged that the plaintiffs-respondents were appointed on purely temporary basis as work-charged employees and after the completion of the project, their services were validly terminated. But plaintiffs-respondents pleaded that they were skilled workers and working in the various capacities in a hydel project in Alandpur for more than 5 years and therefore as per the standing orders and the rules, they were regular employees of the defendants. Nature of work or the skill level may vary but the cause of action remains the same and not at all separate. As a result, on the ground of misjoinder of parties, the suit cannot be held to the bad. Though, it may be bad since mechanism for adjunction of disputes have been provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and jurisdiction of civil courts is barred but not bad because of misjoinder of parties.
Topics: Civil Procedure Code / Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Related Questions in this Topic
- Keerthan was employed by a publishing company as Marketing Executive. He was found guilty of fraud while in service and ...
- Suman, an employee of Prajwal Textiles was dismissed by the employer for misconduct. Suman filed a petition in the Labou...
- Vijaykanth and Amar Jha were in the employment as driver in a university. The university later found that operating the ...
- Vijaykanth and Amar Jha were in the employment as driver in a university. The university later found that operating the ...
- Put the following scenarios, in the category of : (i) 'Arising out of employment' and (ii) 'Arising in the course of emp...