1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Review Petition No.61 Of 2010 In Letters Patent Appeal No.198 Of 2009 In Writ Petition No.5100 Of 2009 Bajaj Auto Limited .. Petitioner. Versus Bajaj Auto Ltd. Employees Union. .. Respondent. -------- Shri. J.P. Cama, Senior Advocate with Shri. R.V. Ghuge, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. T.K. Prabhakaran, Advocate for respondent. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE: 6th MAY 2010 2 ORDER (Per Naresh H Patil, J.) 1) Heard. 2) The learned Senior Counsel Shri. J.P. Cama, appearing for the review petitioner submits that the judgment under review was based on wrong presumption that membership of the respondent Union was verified on 8-6-2007. There is factual error in the order in respect of the majority of members of the Union. It was submitted that the Court erred in concluding that the petitioner company had entered into a settlement with the respondent – Union in relation to daily rated workmen,hence the majority membership of the Union could be assumed. The issue relating to Staff-1 and Staff-2 primarily concerns the monthly rated workmen whereas, 3 the settlement was in respect of daily rated workmen. The petitioner require details of the members, who were raising the grievance through the Union, for taking up appropriate defence. The counsel has referred to the provisions of Section 11(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Union did not disclose names of its members or the strength of its members which amounts to misleading the Court. It is the right of the petitioner to seek this information. The counsel urged that the trial Court may not require at this stage the information sought by the petitioner but it is vital for the petitioner to get the information in respect of the strength of members which, according to the union has with it. 4 3) On the point of scope of review application the learned counsel has placed reliance on the reported judgments in (1) Green View Tea & Industries v. Collector, (2004) 4 SCC 122 and (2) S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595. 4) The learned counsel in support of his submissions has also placed reliance on the following judgments. (i) Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai, AIR 1976 SC 1455. (ii) Food Corporation of India v. The P.F. Commissioner, 1990 I CLR 20 S.C. (iii) Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. ESI Corporation, 2008 II CLR 309. 5) The learned counsel Shri. T.K. Prabhakaran, appearing for the respondent Union submitted that, the information 5 sought by the petitioner in the trial Court was irrelevant. The issue in respect of minority or majority of the members of the respondent union is also irrelevant and a misconception of the petitioner company in respect of the proceedings which are initiated and going on before the trial Court. The membership issue is not the subject matter of reference. The issue is in respect of wage structure of a class of workmen and not individual workmen. The attempt of the petitioner company, according to the counsel, is to break the unity of the Union and delay the process of justice as the reference is pending since the year 2000 and the witness is helplessly waiting for further proceedings to go ahead and for cross examination. There is no separate Union for espousing the cause of 6 the monthly rated workmen (Staff-1 and Staff-2). The Union concerned had espoused the cause of the daily rated workmen and is entitled even to espouse the cause of the monthly rated workmen. 6) The learned counsel submitted that the case laws cited by the counsel for the petitioner is out of context. The claim made by the respondent Union is in persona and not in rem. The petitioner had invited observations of this Court and now they shall not be permitted to apply to seek review of the order / observations made in the order passed by the Court. 7) We have perused the orders passed by the Industrial Court, the learned Single Judge passed in the writ petition and the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal. We find that the Division Bench had 7 considered the issues raised by the respective parties appropriately by providing sound reasoning. The issues raised in the review petition were by and large the issues before the Court earlier too. The matter is pending in the Industrial Court since last 9 to 10 years. It is certainly high time that the proceedings are taken up and concluded on its merits by the Industrial Court. 8) We have perused the judgments cited by the counsel. 9) We do not find any error apparent on the face of record or error in the view adopted by this Court. 10) The Review Petition is dismissed. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ ra.61.10