IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3759 OF 2008 Shramik Utkarsha Sabha ..... Petitioner V/s. Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh & Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.P.M.Palshikar, for the Petitioner. Mr.G.S.Baj, for Respondent No.1. Mr.K.S.Bapat with T.R.Yadav with R.V.Paranjpe, for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. DATED : JULY 18, 2008. P.C. 1. This petition is directed against the interlocutory order passed by the Industrial Court, Thane, dated 14-03-2008 below Exh.U-11 in Application (MRTU) No.12 of 2005. 2. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 14 of MRTU and PULP Act, for recognition of the Union. In the said proceedings initially, the investigation officer was already appointed and accordingly he gave his report at Exh.6. As per the said report 162 employees who claimed to be a members of the applicant union, are also the members of the non-applicant union. Therefore, 162 employees are having dual membership. In view of the said report, the present petitioner submitted an application at Exh.U-11 with a request that the Investigation Officer may be appointed for 2 physical verification of the aforesaid 162 members and he may be asked to submit his report accordingly. 3. The learned Member of the Industrial Court, Thane, rejected the said application by the impugned order dated 14-03-2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the earlier report when it is found that 162 employees are having dual membership, it would be just and proper to get physical verification of the aforesaid 162 members and the investigation Officer may be appointed for undertaking this exercise. The Tribunal however found that the matter is pending since 2005 and therefore, it would not be proper to make appointment of investigation Officer for physical verification. The Trial Court held that the petitioner can lead evidence before the Court pointing out that the majority of the employees are their members. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner union will have to examine 162 employees and that it will be a time consuming factor. The learned Advocate for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the order of the Industrial Court is just and proper and not required to be interfered with. 5. I have heard both the sides at some length and have gone through the impugned order. In my view, this Court would not like to interfere with 3 the impugned order in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, when the main proceedings are at large before the Tribunal and the matter is pending before the Tribunal since 2005. It is clarified that in case at the time of recording the evidence at any stage if the Court is of the opinion that physical verification of 162 employees in question is required, the Court can consider this aspect at any point of time during the pendency of the original application. If the applicant if so desire, after a part of the evidence recorded before the Tribunal, prefers any fresh application in view of the available evidence on record in connection with the dual membership, the Labour Court may decide such application in accordance with law. However, on this point this Court has not expressed any opinion and is entirely left to the discretion of the Labour Court in this behalf. At present, since the matter is at evidence stage, this Court would not like to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. Subject to what is stated above, the writ petition is rejected. ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )