HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4454/2019 1. Nayna Ram Son Of Shri Motu Ram Jat, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 16, Shiv Vihar Colony, Near Gokulpura Phatak, Kanakpura, Jaipur. 2. Daliya Ram Son Of Shri Mangal Ram Meena, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 96, Ganesh Vihar, Opposite Kanakpura Railway Station, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Akhil Bhartiya Railway Mal Godam Majdoor Kalyan Sanstha, Through Its General Secretary, Plot No. 92, Mangal Nagar, Sirsi Road, Panchyawala, Jaipur. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, North-Western Railway, Power House Road, Jaipur. 3. Mandal Vanijya Prabandhak, Uttar Paschim Railway, Power House Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bajrang Lal Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Joshi JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 02/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 20.11.2018 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) by which an application filed by the petitioners for deletion of their names from the array of cause-title in the statement of claim submitted by the respondent No.1 has been rejected. (2 of 3) [CW-4454/2019] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.1 has raised an industrial dispute and reference of the said dispute has been sent by the Government to the Tribunal wherein the name of the petitioners are not mentioned. Learned counsel submits that even in the statement of claim submitted by respondent No.1, no relief has been sought against the present petitioners and they have been unnecessarily impleaded as party in the array of cause-title. Learned counsel submits that in absence of any relief sought against the petitioners, they are neither necessary nor proper party, hence their names are liable to be deleted from the array of cause-title in the statement of claim, pending before the Tribunal. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 opposed the prayer and submitted that in Para 3 of the statement of claim several allegations have been levelled against the petitioners with regard to connivance between the respondents and the petitioners with regard to the exploitation of workman and labours by the Railway Administration. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, the petitioners should be represented in personal capacity in the statement of claim and their presence is required for proper adjudication of the dispute raised by respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners for deletion of their names from the array of cause-title by passing a reasoned and speaking order, hence interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. (3 of 3) [CW-4454/2019] 5. Perusal of the record indicates that certain allegations have been levelled against the petitioner in Para 3 of the statement of claim. The question as to Whether the petitioners are necessary party or not, or whether the claim filed by the respondent No.1 amounts to mis-joinder of the party or not are required to be decided by the Tribunal at the appropriate stage. Presently, this would be a pre-mature stage to make any comment with regard to the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners. 6. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also looking to the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the statement of claim, this Court finds no merit and substance in the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners. The Tribunal has passed a reasoned and cogent order, which requires no interference of this Court. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand dismissed. 8. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to assail the award, if passed against them before appropriate forum of law. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/180