1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.1946 of 2010 (Raymond UCO Denim Pvt. Ltd. v. The Asstt. Registrar of Unions and another) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri V.R. Thakur, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri A.S. Sonare, AGP for Respondent no.1. Shri R.N. Sen, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Dated : 29 th April, 2010 The controversy needs to be considered in the light of the order dated 29-1-2010 passed in Writ Petition No.5125 of 2009. This Court by the said order has directed the Management to produce attendance register/muster and asked respondent No.1 to verify the same and to decide whether the claim for recognition as representative union made by respondent No.2 can be granted or not. If after such an exercise respondent No.1 had any doubt, physical verification was permitted. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned AGP for respondent No.1 seeks time to obtain instructions and file reply. However, considering that the matter is pending since long and the issue is between the petitioner-Management and respondent No.2 Trade Union, the request of the learned AGP for grant of time is rejected. The record shows that on 15-3-2010, respondent No.1 has declared that if the petitioner has failed to appear, the copy of attendance register produced by them shall be treated as final. 2 The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has tried to demonstrate that the relevant records were not produced within fifteen days as directed by this Court. However, from communication dated 15-3-2010, it is apparent that the records produced were accepted by respondent No.1 and he had also started considering the same. As per the communication dated 15-3-2010, the records were to be verified by 25-3-2010. The petitioner was unable to appear and sought adjournment till 15-4-2010, pointing out year ending audit work. On 26-3-2010, respondent No.1 wrote to the petitioner and fixed the matter on 29-3-2010. On 29-3-2010 again the representative of the petitioner requested for taking up the matter after 15-4-2010. The request was opposed by the representative of respondent No.2 and after considering the delay in the matter, respondent No.1 fixed the date 4-5-2010 for physical verification. This order 29-3-2010 is challenged in the present petition. The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order does not show any application of mind as per the order of this Court dated 29-1-2010. The learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, contends that because of the tactics adopted by the petitioner, the particular course of action was required to be adopted. The learned AGP for respondent No.1 is also supporting the impugned order and points out that because of the order of this Court, the matter needs to be decided expeditiously. Perusal of the order dated 29-3-2010 does not show that any exercise of verification of the documents filed by the petitioner was undertaken. If any such exercise was undertaken, why the decision to grant recognition to respondent No.2-Trade Union on the basis of those documents could not be taken, is also not clear. Similarly what doubts surfaced in the mind of respondent No.1 necessitating physical verification is also not recorded. 3 In this situation, I find it proper in the interest of justice to direct the petitioner to appear before respondent No.1 on 3-5-2010 at 11 a.m. with all relevant records for the purposes of verification and consideration by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 shall hear the petitioner, through their representative, and also representative of respondent No.2, and proceed further with verification of records and further exercise in accordance with law. The order dated 29-3-2010 is quashed and set aside for that purpose. Respondent No.1 shall attempt to complete the exercise and pass appropriate orders in the matter as early as possible and in any case by 4-6- 2010. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Certified copy is expedited. Judge. pdl