1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4820 OF 2009 Association of Engineering Workers, Pantnagar, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -86, Through its Secretary, Dhirendra Pratapsing, R/o-Pantnagar, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-86. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) Maharashtra Samarth Kamgar Sanghatana, Samarth Janseva Karyalaya, 5/168, Ganesh Chowk, D.N. Nagar, Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 005, Through its Secretary. 2) M/s. Crompton Grieves Ltd., M-3 Division, L T Motors, A-6/2, MIDC, Nagapur, Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.P.V. Barde Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.Ashok Patil Advocate with Mrs. Renuka Ghule Advocate for Respondent No.1. None present for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 14TH AUGUST, 2009. 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for Respondent No.1. The Petitioner - original Respondent preferred present Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 8th July, 2009 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar below Exhibit U-11 and Exhibit NA-18, by which the Industrial Court appointed Investigating Officer for the purpose of verification of members of the union. Present Respondent No.1 filed application dated 22nd June, 2009 being Exhibit U-11 for compliance of Section 11 and 19 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 for appointing investigating officer. The said application was allowed by the Industrial Court and appointed investigating officer. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner states that the Industrial Court should have framed the preliminary issue about maintainability of the Application itself as the Respondent No.1 had not complied with the provisions of Section 14 of the said 3 Act. As per order dated 8th July, 2009, the Industrial Court appointed investigating officer to verify the strength of members of both the unions. Not only that, Issue No.1 framed by the Industrial Court, reads thus: "Whether the applicant union proves that it has complied with the conditions of section 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971?" 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 states that out of 307 total members, 220 members have already filed their affidavits of evidence and matter is in progress. Considering these facts, at this stage I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 8th July, 2009 when investigation is in progress and near about 70% members have already filed their affidavit of evidence. In view of this, Writ Petition is dismissed. [K.K. TATED, J.] asb/AUG09/wp4820.09