1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.336 OF 2008 BEST Workers’ Union .. Petitioner Versus BEST Undertaking & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.C.U.Singh, Senior Counsel with Mr.M.D.Nagle for petitioner Mr.P.M.Palshikar with Mr.A.A.Siddique i/b. M/s.M.V.Kini & Co. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J DATE : 21st April 2008 P.C. . Heard Mr.Singh, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.Palshikar, learned Counsel for BEST 2 Undertaking. Perused the impugned order which has been passed below Exh.UA-2 on 11th January 2008 in complaint ULP No.547 of 2007 instituted by the petitioner - original complainant. 2. It appears that five persons who claimed to be in the employment of the undertaking as daily rated employees, have applied for impleading them as party respondents. 3. After hearing both sides that application has been allowed. 4. The apprehension of Mr.Singh is that impleadment of applicants before the Industrial Court as party respondent Nos. 3 to 8 would mean that all daily rated or similarly placed employees would apply for similar reliefs. 5. The impugned order is interlocutory. It does not decide anything, save and except the 3 limited issue that whether such of the applicants who came before the Industrial Court are necessary and proper parties. They are directed to be impleaded as proper parties by the learned Member on the prima facie finding that they would be adversely affected by the decision in the complaint. 6. In my view, this does not decide the issue as to whether a Representative union alone can represent all employees in the undertaking or not. That issue is open for being raised and considered when final orders in the complaint are being passed. Similarly, the apprehension that impleadment of these applicants would mean that all similarly placed employees can also be impleaded can be taken care of by issuing a direction to the Industrial Court that it should not entertain any further Applications for joinder and should proceed on the basis that the applicants who are already joined as respondent 4 Nos. 3 to 8 represent all employees who are similarly placed and claim to be recruited as Daily Rated Employees or Daily Wage Workers. The Industrial Court to proceed with the complaint and render a decision on merits after hearing both sides. 7. All pleas of the petitioner Union so also of the undertaking on merits and the reliefs, if any, in the complaint are kept open. Merely because the application before the Industrial Court has been allowed does not mean that the petitioner is precluded from canvassing and raising appropriate pleas with regard to its status and character under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. 8. Mr.Singh’s grievance is that the application for interim relief in the complaint is kept pending and no orders are passed thereon. The undertaking has already filed its reply to 5 the application and it is contesting respondent. In such circumstances, the Industrial Court to decide the application for interim relief preferred by the petitioner union as expeditiously as possible and within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. All contentions on interim relief of both sides are kept open. Petition disposed of. No Costs. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)