IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20979 of 2010(S)
1. BOBAN LAL V., OFFICE OF THE (SDE)
... Petitioner
2. LEENA ROSE THOMAS, (SDE) D TAX, BSNL,
3. S.SURENDRAN NAIR, SDE, STAFF,
4. R.UDAYAKUMAR, SDE, CALL CENTRE BSNL,
5. K.P.RAJAN, SDE (B.S.S.) M.S., B.S.N.L.
6. MANOJ KRISHNAN K. A.D. WI-MAX, BSNL,
7. S.NARENDRAKUMAR, S.D.E.TRANSMISSION,
8. VALSA PHILIP, SDE, (C.S.C),
9. SURESH JYOTHI B., SDE (LEGAL)
Vs
1. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED,
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (BSNL)
3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE
4. THOMAS ZACHARIAH, MUNJATTU,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :12/07/2010
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.20979 OF 2010
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1.The petitioners are employees of BSNL. They challenge an
order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam
Bench that was rendered in O.A.16/09. The writ petitioners
were not parties to that Original Application. Therefore,
when this matter came up for admission, it was noticed that
they could not move this Court as the court of first instance,
going by the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajeev Kumar
& Another v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan & Others [AIR 2010
SC 1679], rendered relying on the judgment of the
Constitution Bench in L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
& Others [(1997) 3 SCC 261]. Faced with this situation,
learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner points out
WPC.20979/10
2
that in Rajeev Kumar (supra), the Tribunal had never
answered any question as to non-joinder of necessary parties,
while in the case in hand, the Tribunal had taken note of the
contention of BSNL that necessary parties are not before it
and it concluded that no further parties are required to be on
the array to determine the issues in the light of the nature of
the relief sought for. The Tribunal, in fact, overruled the
objections of BSNL in that regard, it is pointed out.
2.Learned counsel for BSNL states that it is also aggrieved by
the impugned order of the Tribunal and the precedent of the
Tribunal, referred to in the impugned order, is already under
challenge before this Court and that the said matter has been
admitted and an order of stay has been granted.
Be that as it may, in Rajeev Kumar (supra), the Apex Court
categorically stated that the grievances of third parties that
they were not parties to proceedings before the Tribunal
WPC.20979/10
3
ought to be raised only before the Tribunal and not before the
High Court in proceedings under Article 226 and 227 and no
such writ petition could be entertained because it would
amount to treating the High Court as the court of first
instance for entertaining the lis between the writ petitioners
and those who are before the Tribunal. In fact, the Apex
Court has clearly indicated in paragraph 16 of the judgment
in Rajeev Kumar (supra) that the remedy of any person
aggrieved by such an order would lie before the Tribunal in
the form of application for review. Even if a question as to
non-joinder of necessary parties has been raised by parties
who are arrayed in a proceedings and if such issues are
answered and if the Tribunal has consciously considered the
same, that would bind only parties who are before the
Tribunal and would not affect the rights of parties who could
move the Tribunal thereafter, seeking that the order is to be
reviewed. In this view of the matter, we are bound to follow
the law laid by the Apex Court in Rajeev Kumar (supra).
WPC.20979/10
4
Therefore, we dismiss this writ petition in limine, without
expressing anything on merits and preserving the rights of
the parties to move the Tribunal for review of the impugned
order.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
Judge.
kkb.14/07.