Judgment R.M. Doshit, J.—Heard the learned advocates. With the consent of the learned advocates, the Appeal is heard and decided today. 2. This Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises from the order dated 1st May 2008 made by the learned Single Judge in above Civil Application No. 5308 of 2008, allowing the respondent No. 1 to be joined as party respondent No. 3 in the above Special Civil Application No. 134 of 2006 pending the hearing before the learned Single Judge. 3. The above Special Civil Application No. 134 of 2006 is preferred by the appellant Baroda Rayon Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) and one another under Article 226 of the Constitution against the judgment and award dated 6th December 2005 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Reference (IT) No. 15 of 2005. Pending the Reference the Tribunal has directed the Company to reinstate the seven workmen dismissed from service and has issued injunction against the Company restraining it from transferring or disposing of in any other manner whatsoever the lands and assets of the Company. 4. Pending the writ petition, the respondent No. 1 approached the learned Single Judge in above Civil Application No. 5308 of 2008 seeking permission to join as party respondent in the pending Special Civil Application No. 134 of 2006. According to the respondent, he is the purchaser of the land ad-measuring 5,60,000 sq.mtrs bearing Revenue Survey Nos.151 and 57 of Village Udhna, originally belonging to the Company, from its purchaser M/s. Shiv Industrial Co-operative Society through the constituted attorney Mahavir Potubhai Chudasama of Rajendra Keshavlal Patel, the Chairman of M/s. Shiv Industrial Co-operative Society. Further, he has sold the said land to one Ranmalbhai Lakhubhai Ahir on 11th October 2004 under an agreement for sale. The said application, in spite of the contest by the Company, has been allowed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the present Appeal. 5. learned Advocate Mr. Naik has appeared for the Company. He has submitted that the learned Single Judge did not allow time to the Company to file counter affidavit. He has submitted that the above-referred land Survey Nos.151 and 57 was sold by the Company under the direction of Debts Recovery Tribunal to the above-referred M/s. Shiv Industrial Co-operative Society. However, the said M/s. Shiv Industrial Co-operative Society made default in the payment. He has submitted that the above-referred land Survey Nos.151 and 57 was sold by the Company under the direction of Debts Recovery Tribunal to the above-referred M/s. Shiv Industrial Co-operative Society. However, the said M/s. Shiv Industrial Co-operative Society made default in the payment. The sale in favour of M/s. Shiv Industrial Co-operative Society was cancelled by the order dated 10th January 2003 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Since then, the said land has been sold under the orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal to another purchaser one Maruti Developer. The said land having been sold before the order of the Industrial Tribunal, the same is not the subject matter of the interim injunction issued by the Industrial Tribunal. He has further submitted that in pending Special Civil Application No. 134 of 2006 the dispute is between the Company and its employees. The respondent No. 1 can have no interest in the said dispute. The respondent No. 1 is, therefore, neither a necessary nor a proper party to the pending Special Civil Application No. 134 of 2006. 6. Mr. Naik has produced copy of the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal made on 10th January 2003 for our perusal. 7. We do agree that, first; in a dispute between the company and its workmen, the respondent No. 1 cannot be a necessary or a proper party. Second; in view of the cancellation of sale in favour of the aforesaid M/s. Shiv Industrial Co-operative Society, the respondent No. 1, may be a genuine buyer, cannot have right, title or interest in the land in question. Third; the land in question having been sold prior to the date of the order of the Industrial Tribunal, the said land cannot be the subject matter of injunction issued by the Industrial Tribunal. 8. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the respondent No. 1 to join as party respondent in pending Special Civil Application No. 134 of 2006. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this Appeal with cost. The impugned order dated 1st May 2008 made by the learned Single Judge in Civil Application No. 5308 of 2008 is set aside. Civil Application No. 5308 of 2008 is rejected. The respondent No. 1 will bear the cost of the appellant. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 will bear their own cost. 10. Civil Application stands disposed of.