# Sewerage v. A. Rajappa and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 515
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-04-25
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64921 of 2010
- **Bench:** Shashi Kant Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sewerage-v-a-rajappa-and-others-42232
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226impleadment
application
after
1-1/2
years-while
similar
application
with
same grounds already rejected by Lower
Appellate Court-remained unchallengedcan not be entertained directly before
Writ Court.

Held: Para 5

It is also notable that even though the
present writ petition is pending since
24.10.2010, the impleadment application
has been filed by the applicant today i.e.
after more than 1-1/2 years without any
plausible explanation with regard to
delay. Thus, the impleadment application
filed at the last stage of the writ petition
without challenging the earlier order of
the
court
below
rejecting
the
516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
impleadment
applicant
can
not
be
accepted as bonafide.

## Text

1 All] Smt. Malika Jahan Ara Begum V. Abdul Rahim Khan (Now Dead) and others
515

7. The answering respondent has
admittedly retired and attained the age of
superannuation. In such circumstances the
petitioners have come up questioning the
award in relation to the payment to which
the respondent claims entitlement.

8. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties. Learned counsel for the
petitioner relying on the judgment in the
case of Bangalore Water Supply &
Sewerage Vs. A. Rajappa and others
SCC 1978 Volume 2 Page 213 contends
that such institutions are entirely exempted
from the purview of the Industrial Disputes
Act and hence the Labour Court committed
a manifest error by proceeding to construe
otherwise.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent-workman has relied on the same
judgment to contend that the judgment does
not carve out any such exemption in favour
of the petitioner as such in these
circumstances the said plea of the petitioner
cannot be entertained.

9. It is by now well settled that
educational institutions are industries but its
teachers and teaching staff are not
workman. The respondent-workman was an
electrician in the institution and, therefore,
he was a workmen. Reference be had to the
judgment in the cases of SCC 1988 (4)
Page 43 Miss A. Sundarambal Vs.
Government of Goa, Daman and Diu and
others and SCC 1996 (4) Page 225
Haryana
Unrecognised
Schools'
Association Vs. State of Haryana. The
respondent-workman was an electrician in
the institution and, therefore, he was like
skilled workers. In such circumstances, the
contention raised on behalf of the petitioner
cannot be accepted in view of the decision
rendered in Bangalore Water Supply
(Supra) itself as followed in the subsequent
judgment reported to hereinabove.

10. The respondent- workman has
been given an unfair treatment by not
holding any inquiry at all and in the
circumstances the labour court was fully
justified in awarding back wages to the
respondent. I am not inclined to interfere
with the impugned award at all. The writ
petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.04.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT GUPTA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64921 of 2010

Smt. Malika Jahan Ara Begum

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Abdul Rahim Khan (Now Dead) and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ramendra Asthana

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.K. Dixit

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226impleadment
application
after
1-1/2
years-while
similar
application
with
same grounds already rejected by Lower
Appellate Court-remained unchallengedcan not be entertained directly before
Writ Court.

Held: Para 5

It is also notable that even though the
present writ petition is pending since
24.10.2010, the impleadment application
has been filed by the applicant today i.e.
after more than 1-1/2 years without any
plausible explanation with regard to
delay. Thus, the impleadment application
filed at the last stage of the writ petition
without challenging the earlier order of
the
court
below
rejecting
the
516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
impleadment
applicant
can
not
be
accepted as bonafide.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.)

Re:
Civil
Misc.
Impleadment
Application Dated 25.04.2012

1.

This
is
an
Impleadment
Application filed by the applicant namely
Malik Shah Nawaz Wali Khan stating that
the property in dispute was purchased by
him on 20.09.1996, as such, he is the
necessary and proper party to the present
writ petition.

2. Earlier also, the applicant Malik
Shah Nawaz Wali Khan had moved a
similar application for impleading him as
party before the lower Appellate Court in
Appeal No. 110 of 1985. The said
application was rejected by order dated
31.07.2010 holding that the property,
which has been purchased by the
applicant, is not the disputed portion of
the property and the said application was
filed with malafide intention to delay the
proceeding of the case. It was also held by
the lower Appellate Court that the
applicant is neither a necessary party nor
his rights are affected.

3. It is also notable that the release
application was filed in the year 1984 and
matter is pending since last 28 years but
unfortunately till date the matter has not
attained finality. The Appellate court
below has already held that the property
in dispute was not the property, which has
been purchased by the applicant, as such,
the applicant is neither a necessary party
nor his rights are affected.

4. The impleadment application was
rejected on 31.07.2010 by the Court
below but the said order was never
challenged by the applicant. Today, when
the matter was taken up for final disposal
after several adjournments as unlisted, the
applicant filed the present impleadment
application. It appears that the present
application has been filed by the applicant
mainly to delay the disposal of the present
writ petition.

5. It is also notable that even though
the present writ petition is pending since
24.10.2010, the impleadment application
has been filed by the applicant today i.e.
after more than 1-1/2 years without any
plausible explanation with regard to
delay. Thus, the impleadment application
filed at the last stage of the writ petition
without challenging the earlier order of
the court below rejecting the impleadment
applicant can not be accepted as bonafide.

6. In view of the above, the
impleadment application is dismissed.
---------