1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.599 OF 2010 Kirloskar Kamgar Union ....Petitioner V/s. Engineering Kamgar Union & Anr. ....Respondents Mr.M.S. Topkar for the Petitioner. Mr.N.A. Kulkarni for the Respondents. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 23RD FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. Rule. By consent Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith. 2. The Industrial Court has rightly not gone into the merits of the case at this stage. The only question is whether the Petitioner ought to be heard by the Industrial Court in the complaint. For this reason, I have not permitted Mr.Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent to address me on the merits of the case either. 3. The question whether the Respondents are entitled to payment under the settlement dated 13.9.2008 even for the period after the Respondents were derecognized and the Petitioner was granted recognization will be decided by the Industrial Court. As the rights of the Petitioner are directly involved, it is necessary that the Petitioner is also heard in the complaint. The management may well take a stand that it 2 would abide by the orders of the Court. The Petitioner’s contention therefore would not be considered at any stage which would be unfair to the Petitioner. 4. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set-aside. The Petitioner’s application for intervention is allowed with the clarification that the Petitioner shall also be entitled to file any pleadings, if it so desires.