1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6547 OF 2010 Tatya s/o Bharunath Pawar & another Petitioners Versus Kakaji Agaji Kolte and 38 others Respondents Mr.P.K.Joshi, advocate holding for Advocates S/Shri S.S.Kulkarni and V.P.Golewar, for the petitioners. Mr.S.B.Talekar, advocate holding for Mr.Anand Chaware, advocate Respondents No.1 to 9. Mr.T.K.Prabhakaran, advocate for Respondents No.10 to 18, 22 to 35, 37 & 38. Mr.R.B.Mulay, advocate for Respondents No.19 & 21. Mr.P.L.Shahane, advocate holding for Mr.A.B.Chate, advocate for Respondents No.19 and 36. Mr.R.V.Ghuge, advocate for Respondent No.39. CORAM: V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 26 th July, 2010. PER COURT: 1 Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 The petitioners’ intervention application was rejected by the Industrial Court and, therefore, they challenge the said order. They wanted to intervene in the proceedings on the ground that their assistance to the Court is necessary. The Court did not find it necessary. The impugned order does not reflect an element of any capriciousness, arbitrariness or perversity as such. Moreover, there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioners. In 2 this view of the matter, Learned Counsel Mr.Joshi, appearing for the petitioners, submits that the purpose would be achieved if the proceedings of Application (ICTU) No.2 of 2010 are expeditiously decided on merits, inasmuch as, since last three years, there are no elections held in the Union. The request appears to be justified to the extent of expeditious disposal of the application, which is pending before the Industrial Court. 3 Considering the nature of grievance put forth by the petitioners and foregoing leaders, the following order would meet the ends of justice: “The petition is disposed of with a direction that the Application (ICTU) No.2 of 2010 shall be decided within a period of three months, to the extent it is possible or at the earliest and in the meanwhile, Respondents No.10 to 30 shall not take any major policy decision, particularly pertaining to settlement with Respondent No.39 i.e. M/s Bajaj Auto Limited, which may affect the terms of employment of the workers. The said Respondents may, however, incur expenses only to the extent of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten thousand) supported by valid vouchers which are accountable and for the emergent purposes, as may be required. The issues involved in the petition are kept open. The petitioners’ intervention is, however, not required. All the Civil Applications are disposed of in view of disposal of petition and interim applications pending before the Industrial Court shall be disposed of on merits within a period of one month. The applications, if, are not 3 pressed, shall be considered by the Industrial Court. No coercive action be taken against Respondent No.39 – M/s Bajaj Auto Limited till final outcome of Application (ICTU) No.2 of 2010. Writ Petition stands disposed of. (V.R. KINGAONKAR) JUDGE ******* adb/wp654710