AIR 1988 SUPREME COURT 215 ::1988 LAB. I. C. 366 ::1988 (1) UJ (SC) 327 ::(1987) 55 FacLR 909 ::1987 55 FacLR 909 ::(1988) 1 LabLJ 427 ::(1988) 72 FJR 358 ::1988 72 FJR 358 ::(1988) 1 Lab LN 933 ::1987 SCC (Supp) 536 ::(1988) 1 SCJ 244 ::1988 (1) SCWR 111 ::(1987) 4 JT 373 (SC) ::1987 5 JT 373

Supreme Court Of India

(From : (1987) 70 FJR 343 (Delhi))

Hon'ble Judge(s): E. S. Venkataramiah, K. N. Singh , JJ

Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) , S.10, S.18— Reference - Pendency of - Impleadment of a party on its acquiring rights and liabilities of another party to the proceedings - Not entitled to reopen proceedings as a matter of course - Steps already taken in proceedings are normally binding on impleaded party - Cannot recall and cross-examine witnesses, unless exceptional circumstances are proved, when evidence was closed before its being impleaded. (1987) 70 FJR 343 (Delhi) Reversed. Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.22 R.10— There is no express provision corresponding to R.10, 0.22 Civil P.C. which is applicable to the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal. In order to evolve a reasonable procedure to deal with cases where a devolution of interest takes place during the pendency of a proceeding arising under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the Supreme Court held that in every case of transfer, devolution, merger, take over or a scheme of amalgamation under which the rights and liabilities of one company or corporation stand transferred to or devolve upon another company or corporation either under a private treaty, or a judicial order or under a law the transferee company or corporation as a successor-in-interest becomes subject to all the liabilities of the transferor company or corporation and becomes entitled to all the rights of the tra....