1 LPA265/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.265 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6378 OF 2011 Shri Raghunath H. Kembale ...Appellant v/s Mahanagarpalika Karmachari Sangh and anr. ...Respondents Mr P.P. Chavan with Mr R.R. Chile i/b Ms R.J. Nathani for Appellant. Mr M.S. Topkar for Respondent No.1. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA JJ. DATE : 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011. 2 LPA265/11 P.C. :- 1] Admit. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2] Admitted facts are that the petitioners are employees of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation. They had moved the Corporation for transfer of their salary accounts from the IDBI Bank to Shamrao Vithal Co-op. Bank Ltd. The Corporation accepted their request and passed a resolution for transfer of salary accounts from IDBI Bank to Shamrao Vithal Co-op. Bank. The recognised Union i.e. Respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the Industrial Court challenging that resolution of the employer Corporation. In that complaint, the appellants made applications for being joined as respondents in the complaint. The Industrial Court by order dated 16th July 2011 held that they can be joined as parties, however stated that considering the number of employees who wanted to be joined, they should authorise one or two of them to represent them in 3 LPA265/11 the complaint, in the sense, only one or two persons in their representative capacity would be joined. That order was challenged in writ petition No.6378 of 2011 in this Court. The learned Single Judge by order dated 23rd August 2011 has allowed that petition and set aside the order passed by the Industrial Court. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the sides. It is common ground that if ultimately the complaint which is filed by the respondent No.1 before the Industrial Court is allowed, the resolution of the Corporation for transfer of salary accounts of the appellants from IDBI Bank to Shamrao Vithal Co-op. Bank will be set aside. It is also common ground that the said resolution was passed by the Corporation at the instance of the present appellants. Thus, by the final order, which the respondent No.1 is seeking from the Industrial Court, a decision taken by the employer at the instance of the appellants will be set aside. In this view of the matter therefore, in our opinion, the Industrial Court was justified in holding that they have a right of audience before 4 LPA265/11 the Industrial Court. 3] The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 contended that the case of the appellants that the action of the majority Union of challenging the resolution is not bonafide, cannot be tried by the Industrial Court. In our opinion, it is not necessary to consider while granting application made by the appellants for being joined as a party, whether the complaint filed by the respondent No.1  Union is bonafide or not. For consideration and decision of that application, the only aspect to be considered was whether by the ultimate order which is sought in the complaint, the appellants are likely to be adversely affected or not. Taking overall view of the matter therefore, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge should not have really interfered with the order, because by the order which was impugned before the learned Single Judge, opportunity of being heard was granted to the appellants before the Industrial Court. In the result therefore, appeal succeeds and is 5 LPA265/11 allowed, the order dated 23rd August 2011 passed in writ petition No.6378 of 2011 is set aside. That petition is dismissed. Appeal is disposed off. Civil application No.326 of 2011 is disposed off. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE ANOOP V. MOHTA )