' GHULAM NAUMAN SHAIKH (MEMBER).--- This is application under Order I, rule 10 read with section 151,C.P.C. Supported by affidavit filed by Saghar Khan to implead him as one of the petitioners in Petition bearing No,4A(79) of 2005/K under section 49(4)(e) of the I.R.O., 2002 read with Regulation 32(2) of N.I.R.C. (P&F) Regulations, 1973 filed by Mujeebur Rehman and 13 others.
2. Heard Mr. M.A.K. Azmati, learned Advocate for the intervener/petitioner and Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, learned Advocate for the respondents.
3. Mr. M.A.K. Azmati, learned Advocate for the intervener/ petitioner has contended that a petition under section 49(4)(e) of the I.R.O., 2002 read with Regulation 32(2) of N.I.R.C. (P&F) Regulations, 1973 was filed by Mujeebur Rehman and 13 others including Shell Employees Union through its General Secretary, wherein intervener was not joined as petitioner as he was working at Machiki Installation, Shekho Pura, Punjab and was not in Karachi when the said petition was filed. It is contended that grievance and cause of action to the intervener is common as that to all the petitioners, who have filed the above said petition, including the Union at Serial No,14, which being C.B.A. Is espousing the common grievance of the workers under section 33 of the I.R.O., 2002. It is contended that in the petition there is allegation against the respondents regarding the acts of unfair labour practice. The letter of the retrenchment in respect of the intervener was issued at Karachi. It neither has been served on the intervener nor has the post of the intervener been abolished by the respondents. It is submitted that the intervener is necessary party as such he may be joined as co-petitioner.
4. On the other hand it is contended by Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, learned Advocate for the respondents that under Order. I, rule 10, C.P.C. The party can only be added when it is necessary or proper party. The necessary party is that person, who ought to have been joined as party and in whose absence no effective decree can be passed. Under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. Proper party is that person, whose presence before the Court is necessary to enable it effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all question involved in the suit. It is contended that intervener is neither necessary nor proper party to be joined as petitioner in the petition. Individual letters of retrenchment have been issued and retrenched workers have separate cause of action. It is submitted that intervener was working at Machiki Installation at Shekhu Pura, Punjab and whatever has been done and if the intervener is not allowed, to perform his duty, it was Machiki Installation, Shekhu Pura Punjab and cause of action arises to intervener at Machiki Installation which does not lie within jurisdiction of this Bench of Commission, and its jurisdiction lies with N.I.R.C., Lahore Bench.
It is submitted that in main petition it is not mentioned that anyone at Machiki Installation Shekhu Pura Punjab also has contacted the petitioners, so as the intervener can claim to be joined .As petitioner. It is contended that retrenchment took place on 11-6-2005, whereas application of intervener was filed on 6-7-2005. It is contended that in view of the submission of the Advocate for the intervener that C.B.A. Is representative of the workers under section 33 of the I.R.O., 2002 in the present petition, then there appears no need even to file the application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C.
By the intervener to be impleaded him as one of the petitioners in the petition. In support of his contention Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, learned Advocate for the respondents has placed his reliance on 2003 SCM R 964, 1994 SCM R 2268 and PLD 1994 SC 95.
' In reply to arguments of learned Advocate for the respondents, the learned Advocate for the intervener has submitted that letter of retrenchment of the intervener was issued at Karachi, as such this Bench of Commission has jurisdiction to implead the intervener as one of the petitioners in the petition and intervener also has common grievance and cause of action, so as to avoid multiplicity of cases the intervener may be joined as one of the petitioners.
' From the perusal of the petition under section 49(4)(e) of the I.R.O., 2002 bearing No,4A(79)2005-K filed by Mujeebur Rehman and 13 others including Shell Employees Union, C.B.A., it appears that the respondents introduced Voluntary Separation Scheme on 3-5-2005, thereby invited the workers to apply for separation from the company by voluntarily resigning on their free-will by using the enclosed pro forma, making the employees, whose applications for separation from the service are accepted to be eligible for exgratia payment as mentioned in the VSS by tendering the resignations with the pro forma. It appears that none of the workers has applied for VSS. According to the respondents its management has discussed the matter with the C.B.A. Before announcing the scheme, but the C.B.A. Union refused to cooperate. However, the respondents have then issued letters of retrenchment dated 9-6-2005 filed with the reply by the respondents in the petition, which according to the petitioners in the main petition and intervener in the present application have not been served on them, when the respondent's contention is that the same have been sent by registered post A.D. And were offered to the petitioners as well as to the intervener, as such the same have taken effect, which fact is yet to be considered while hearing the application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of N.I.R.C. (P&F) Regulations, 1973, wherein interim prohibitory order was passed in the petition on 13-8-2005, and also other miscellaneous applications, which have been filed by the Advocate for the respondents, the same also being directly connected with the application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of N.I.R.C. (P&F) Regulations , 1973.
' No doubt under Order. I, rule 1, C.P.C. The intervener could have joined one of the petitioners in the main petition as he is claiming to have the right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same act of the respondents, but at this stage when an application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. Has been filed by the intervener, the only question will be considered whether intervener is necessary or proper party and in his absence above said petition filed by the said petitioners cannot be effectively and properly adjudicated. In my view no such situation is likely to arise in absence of the intervener in the said petition as the questions involved in the petition can be effectively and completely adjudicated in absence of the intervener. The intervener if has any cause of action, he is not deprived to file any separate petition.
8. Regarding the jurisdiction of this Bench of Commission, the arguments of learned Advocate for the respondents that intervener had a cause of action at Machiki Installation, Shekhu Pura, Punjab, where he was working as such the jurisdiction lies with the Bench of Commission at Lahore, it shall be appropriate to refer to section 20 of Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that suit can be filed against the defendant where it carries on business or personally works for gain and in its Explanation-II it says that Corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office or in respect of any cause of action arising at any place, where it has also a subordinate office, at such place, and term Corporation includes statutory Corporations as well as companies registered under the Companies Act, as it appears form the commentary on section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondents company's principal office is at Karachi arid its sub- offices at other places outside the Province of Sindh in Punjab. The retrenchment letter has been issued from the principal office at Karachi in respect of the intervener working at Punjab, in my view he can sue for his cause of action at either of the place.
' For the foregoing reasons the application of the intervener is dismissed.
' Announced in open Court. This 22nd day of August, 2005.