JUDGMENT : A.S. Supehia, J. 1. RULE. Learned advocates appear and waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. A short issue is involved in both the present writ petitions whether the order passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad dated 15.03.2021 in Reference (IT) Nos. 29 of 2019 and 26 of 2019 relegating the present petitioner to file an application or avail the efficacious adjudication of the dispute under Section 10(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the "I.D. Act"), is legal or not. 3. The facts which are not disputed by either of the parties is that the petitioner is a registered Union, who initiated the references for the claim of a particular pay-scale. 4. The conciliation proceedings were initiated, which culminated into Reference (IT) Nos. 29 of 2019 and 26 of 2019. During the pendency of the references, the petitioner-Union, when they came to know that in fact the respondent No. 1 is a grant-in-aid institute receiving 100% grant from the State Government, it made an application to join the State Government as a respondent in the pending reference, as per the provisions of Section 18 of the I.D. Act. 5. By the impugned order, the Industrial Court has directed the present petitioner to file an application under Section 10(5) of the I.D. Act. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Shah, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in fact, under the provisions of Section 18(3)(b) of the I.D. Act, the Industrial Court should have directly added the State Government, as a party respondent since the Institute is a fully grant-in-aid institute and conferment of the pay-scale depends upon sanction of the State Government and until and unless such grant-in-aid is released to the respondent-Institute, the petitioner would not got the pay-scale. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of High Court in the case of Hotchtief Gammon v. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa and Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1746 . Thus, it is submitted that the impugned orders may be set aside. 7. In response to the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavati, has submitted that no interference is required in the order passed by the Industrial Court. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned orders may be set aside. 7. In response to the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavati, has submitted that no interference is required in the order passed by the Industrial Court. However, it is not denied by him that in fact the respondent-Institute is a fully grant-in-aid institute and the State Government would be a necessary party, so that the industrial dispute can be adjudicated. He has submitted that the very same judgment, on which reliance is placed by learned advocate Mr. Shah, holds that for addition of any parties, an application under Sections 10(4) and 10(5) of the I.D. Act, is required to be made and the Industrial Court has no power to add or issue summon, to any parties under section 18(3)(b) of the I.D. Act, which are not parties to the reference proceedings. 8. Thus, it is submitted that the order may not be disturbed and it is always open for the petitioner to file an application under Section 10(5) of the I.D. Act, as ordered by the Industrial Court. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mehta, has also adopted the arguments advanced by the learned senior advocate. However, he has further submitted that right from the beginning, the petitioner-Union was aware that the respondent-Institute is grant-in-aid hospital and that was within their knowledge, however they did not make efforts to join the State Health and Welfare Department as a party respondent and hence, the only option is left with them to file an application under Section 10(5) of the I.D. Act. 10. I have heard the learned advocates for respective parties to the lis. I have also perused the relevant documents. 11. As stated hereinabove, the issue raised in the writ petition is in a narrow-compass. The issue is whether the order passed by the Industrial Court relegating the present petitioner for availing the remedy under Section 10(5) of the I.D. Act, is just and proper or the Industrial Court can add a party, while exercising powers by resorting to the provision under section 18(3)(b) of the Act. 12. The issue is whether the order passed by the Industrial Court relegating the present petitioner for availing the remedy under Section 10(5) of the I.D. Act, is just and proper or the Industrial Court can add a party, while exercising powers by resorting to the provision under section 18(3)(b) of the Act. 12. Sections 10(5) and 18(3)(b) of the I.D. Act, 1947 read as under: "SECTION 10: Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals (5) Where a dispute concerning "any establishment or establishments has been, or is to be, referred to a [Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] under this section and the appropriate Government is of opinion, whether on an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, that the dispute is of such a nature that any other establishment, group or class of establishments of a similar nature is likely to be interested in or affected by, such dispute, the appropriate Government may, at the time of making the reference or at any time thereafter but before the submission of the award, include in that reference such establishment, group or class of establishments, whether or not at the time of such inclusion any dispute exists or is apprehended in that establishment, group or class of establishments. SECTION 18: Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding [(3)]A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Act [or an arbitration award in a case where a notification has been issued under sub-section (3A) of section 10A] or [an award [of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] which has become enforceable] shall be binding on- (a) all parties to the industrial dispute; (b) all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute, unless the Board, [arbitrator], [Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal], as the case may be, records the opinion that they were so summoned without proper cause;" 13. The Apex Court in the case of Hotchtief Gammon (supra), after analyzing the provisions of Sections 10(4), 10(5) and Section 18(3)(b) of the I.D. Act, has held as under : "8. The Apex Court in the case of Hotchtief Gammon (supra), after analyzing the provisions of Sections 10(4), 10(5) and Section 18(3)(b) of the I.D. Act, has held as under : "8. Section 10(4) which was also added by the same amending Act provides, inter alia, that the jurisdiction of the Indus-trial Tribunal would be confined to the points of dispute specified by the order of reference, and adds that the said jurisdiction may take within its sweep matters incidental to the said points. In other words, where certain points of dispute have been referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, it may, while dealing with the said points, deal with natters incidental thereto, and that means that if, while dealing with such incidental matters, the Tribunal feels that some persons who are not joined to the reference should be brought before it, it may be able to make an order in that behalf under s. 18(3)(b) as it now stands. 9. Section 10(5) has now conferred power on the appropriate Government to add to, the reference other establishments, groups or classes of establishments of a similar nature, if it is satisfied that these establishments are likely to be interested in, or affected by, such dispute. In other words, if industrial dispute is referred to a Tribunal for adjudication, and in area within the territorial jurisdiction of the appropriate Government there are other establishments which would be affected by, or interested in, such a dispute, the appropriate Government may add them to the said reference either at the time when the reference is initially made, or during the pendency of the said reference proceedings; but in every case, such additions can be made before the award is submitted. Now, if such persons are added to the reference, the industrial Tribunal may in exercise of its powers under s. 18(3)(b) summon them to appear before it. 10. Section 18(b) with which we began, has also been amended by Act 36 of 1956, and it has now been renumbered. As a result. s. 18(b) is now included in s. 18(3)(b). Now, if such persons are added to the reference, the industrial Tribunal may in exercise of its powers under s. 18(3)(b) summon them to appear before it. 10. Section 18(b) with which we began, has also been amended by Act 36 of 1956, and it has now been renumbered. As a result. s. 18(b) is now included in s. 18(3)(b). Section 18(3) provides, inter-alia, that an award passed by an Industrial Tribunal which has become enforceable shall be binding on: (a) all parties to the industrial disputes; (b) all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute, unless the, Tribunal records the opinion that they were so called without proper cause. 11. xxxxx 12. Reverting then to the question as to the effect of the power which is implied in s. 18(3)(b), it is clear that this power cannot be exercised by the Tribunal so as to enlarge materially the scope of the reference itself, because basically the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to deal with an industrial dispute is-derived solely from the order of reference passed by the appropriate Government under s. 10(1). What the Tribunal can consider in addition to the disputes specified in the order of reference, are only matters, incidental to the said disputes; and that naturally suggests certain obvious limitations on the implied power of the Tribunal to add parties to the reference before it, purporting to exercise its implied power under s. 18(3)(b). If it appears to the Tribunal that a party to the industrial dispute named in the order of reference does not completely or adequately represent the interest either on the side of the employer, or on the side of the employee, it may direct that other persons should be joined who would be necessary to represent such interest. If the employer named in a reference does not fully represent the interests of the employer as such, other persons who are interested in the undertaking of the employer may be joined. Similarly, if the unions specified in the reference do not represent all the employees of the undertaking, it may be open to the Tribunal to add such other unions as it may deem necessary. The test always must be, is the addition of the party necessary to make the adjudication itself effective and enforceable? Similarly, if the unions specified in the reference do not represent all the employees of the undertaking, it may be open to the Tribunal to add such other unions as it may deem necessary. The test always must be, is the addition of the party necessary to make the adjudication itself effective and enforceable? In other words, the test well be, would the non-joinder of the party make the arbitration proceedings ineffective and unenforceable? It is in the light of this test that the implied power of the Tribunal to add parties must be held to be limited. 18. The result is, though we accept Mr. Chatterjee's argument that s. 18(3)(b) postulates the existence of an implied power in the Tribunal to add parties and summon them, in the present case that power cannot be exercised, because having regard to the limited nature of the implied power, M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. cannot be regarded as a necessary party under the provisions of s.18(3)(b). The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs." 14. A perusal of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the afore-noted case will suggest that the Supreme Court has categorically held that if it appears to the Industrial Court that a party to the industrial dispute named in the order of reference does not completely or adequately represent the interest either on the side of the employer, or on the side of the employee, it may direct that other persons should be joined, who would be necessary to represent such interest. If the employer named in a reference does not fully represent the interests of the employer as such, other persons, who are interested in the undertaking of the employer, may be joined. 14.1. The Supreme Court has asserted that the only test would be that the addition of the party is necessary to make the adjudication effective and enforceable or in other words, the non-joinder of a party will make the proceedings ineffective and unenforceable. In the present case, as admitted by the respondent-Institute that it is fully grant-in-aid institute, run by the funds of the State Government, and is a necessary party, but the only objection is raised with regard to the powers to be exercised by the Industrial Court under section 18(3)(b) of the I.D. Act. In the present case, as admitted by the respondent-Institute that it is fully grant-in-aid institute, run by the funds of the State Government, and is a necessary party, but the only objection is raised with regard to the powers to be exercised by the Industrial Court under section 18(3)(b) of the I.D. Act. The petitioner is claiming the pay-scales in such eventuality, if the State Government denies the grant-in-aid to the respondent-Institute, the same would make a direct impact on the claim of the petitioner. The adjudication of the entire dispute will be futile in absence of the state government which is funding the respondent-Institute. Thus, as per the observations of the Apex Court, for effective and impartial adjudication, the Industrial Court should have exercised its power under the provision of section 18(3)(b) of the I.D. Act. 15. Thus, the Industrial Court has fell in error in relegating the petitioner to approach under the provisions of Section 10(5) of the I.D. Act. The impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad. The applications below Exh. 9 and Exh. 10 are restored in its original file and the same shall be decided in accordance with law, after hearing the respective parties, keeping in mind the observations made by this Court. 16. In view of the above, both writ petitions are allowed. Rule is made absolute.