1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.710 OF 2011 (NIRANJANKUMAR SHAHA...VS..LAL ZENDA COAL MINES MAJDOOR & OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. M.V.Samarth, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. B. Lahiri, Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 22, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Industrial Court on 27.10.2010 allowing an application filed by the applicant before the Industrial Court and directing one Shri Vijay Bahadur Rai, President of the Central Committee of the Sangh and Shri Mohammed Tajuddin, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Sangh to call a meeting of the general body and to complete the process of the election of the Committee of Lal Zenda Coal Mines Mazdoor Sangh within two months. The petitioner further impugns the order passed below Exh.UA/16 allowing the same and holding that the dispute raised by the petitioner/ applicant had become infructuous and the same was disposed of. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Industrial Court was not justified in granting the authority to Shri Vijay Bahadur Rai and Shri Mohammad Tajuddin to complete the process of election though it was observed by 2 the Industrial Court by an order dated 22.03.2010 that the said duo had misused their power and authority in holding the general body meeting of the Sangh. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the impugned order was passed by the Industrial Court on 27.10.2010 again Shri Mohammad Tajuddin has presented a false and fabricated report before the Industrial Court and the Industrial Court has accepted the same. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the records have been manipulated to show that the elections were fairly conducted. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are countered by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and it is specifically denied that a false and fabricated report in regard to the elections has been presented by Shri Mohammad Tajuddin before the Industrial Court. The allegation about the manipulation of the record is also denied by the respondent No.3. It is submitted that the petitioner had not immediately challenged the order dated 27.10.2010 appointing Shri Vijay Bahadur Rai and Shri Mohammad Tajuddin to call a meeting of the general body and to complete the process of election and the petitioner is challenging the said order after the report in regard to the election has been accepted by the Industrial Court and the order is passed on application Exh.UA/16. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of both the orders, it appears that though the Industrial Court had, by an order dated 27.10.2010, appointed Shri Vijay Bahadur Rai and Shri Mohammad Tajuddin as competent persons to call the meeting of general body and to complete the process of election, the petitioner 3 did not challenge the said order dated 27.10.2010 and waited till the elections were completed. Thereafter when the report was filed before the Industrial Court by Shri Mohammad Tajuddin and the same was accepted by the Industrial Court by the impugned order dated 12.01.2011, the petitioner challenged the order dated 12.01.2011 along with the previous order dated 27.10.2010 permitting Shri Vijay Bahadur Rai and Shri Mohammad Tajuddin to hold elections. The Industrial Court found that the report of completion of the process of election of the office bearers was duly presented by Shri Mohammed Tajuddin before the Industrial Court. The Court found that the report was a detailed report submitted with notarized affidavit to show as to how the process of election was completed. Similarly the affidavits of the President who chaired the meeting and one Shri De were also submitted. Since, the necessary data was produced before the Court and since the Court found that the order dated 27.10.2010 was duly complied with by calling the general body meeting and by holding the elections, the Court held that the dispute raised by the petitioner/ applicant in the original application was over. The orders passed by the Industrial Court appear to be just and proper. It appears that the writ petition is filed by the petitioner merely because he is dissatisfied with the results of the petition. The disputed questions of facts as regards the alleged falsity of the report presented by Shri Mohammad Tajuddin before the Industrial Court cannot be gone into while exercising the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. 4 Shri Samarth, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks continuation of the ad-interim order passed by this Court on 11th February, 2011 for a further period of four weeks. Shri Lahiri the learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposes the prayer and states that the petition was devoid of merit and continuation of the ad- interim relief would cause serious prejudice to the respondents. However, since the parties were directed to maintain status-quo by an order dated 11th February, 2011, the ad-interim order dated 11th February, 2011 would continue only for a period of ten days from today and would automatically stand vacated after expiry of the said period. JUDGE RR..