GLOBE GROUND INDIA EMPLOYEES UNION versus LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES & ANR.

GLOBE GROUND INDIA EMPLOYEES UNION versus LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES & ANR.

The Supreme Court held that the Industrial Tribunal must confine adjudication to the points referred under Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; mere shareholding or parent-subsidiary relationship is not by itself a ground to implead the parent company. The first respondent was neither a necessary nor a proper party to answer the reference and the High Court orders setting aside impleadment were correct; the corporate veil should not be pierced absent misuse of the corporate form.

Parties
Appellant: Globe Ground India Employees Union; First Respondent: Lufthansa German Airlines; Second Respondent: Globe Ground India Pvt. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Against High Court Judgment and Order Dated 24.11.2016 and Review Order Dated 14.07.2017
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Impleadment, Necessary and Proper Party, Piercing Corporate Veil, Scope of Reference Under Section 10(4) ID Act, Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
Industrial/labour Law Company Law Civil Procedure Impleadment Necessary and Proper Party Piercing Corporate Veil Scope of Reference Under Section 10(4) ID Act Order 1 Rule 10 CPC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Globe Ground India Employees Union

Appellant

Lufthansa German Airlines

First Respondent

Globe Ground India Pvt. Ltd.

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Against High Court Judgment and Order Dated 24.11.2016 and Review Order Dated 14.07.2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Lufthansa German Airlines (first respondent) should be impleaded in the Industrial Tribunal proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent is a necessary or proper party to decide the reference
  3. 3 Whether the corporate veil should be pierced to hold the first respondent liable for acts of its subsidiary

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the Industrial Tribunal must confine adjudication to the points referred under Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; mere shareholding or parent-subsidiary relationship is not by itself a ground to implead the parent company. The first respondent was neither a necessary nor a proper party to answer the reference and the High Court orders setting aside impleadment were correct; the corporate veil should not be pierced absent misuse of the corporate form.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed with no order as to costs