( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Letters Patent Appeal No. 198 of 2009 (Against the order dated 28th August 2009, in Writ Petition No. 5100 of 2009) M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Nagar, MIDC, Waluj, Aurangabad. Through : Its Manager Personnel-Legal, Dilip H. Suryavanshi. .. Appellant. versus Bajaj Auto Ltd. Employees Union, Near CADA Office, Fazal Market, Jeevan Sadhana Apartment, Aurangabad. Through : Its President, B.R. Thengde. .. Respondent. ....................... Mr. J.P. Cama, Senior Advocate, with Mr. R.V. Ghuge, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. T.K. Prabhakaran, Advocate, for the respondent. ........................ ( 2 ) CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Date of reserving the judgment : 21st January 2010. Date of pronouncing the judgment : 24th February 2010. JUDGMENT (Per A.P. Deshpande, J.) : 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 28th August 2009, passed by the learned Single Judge, who though issued Rule, in Writ Petition No. 5100/2009, declined to grant interim relief prayed by the appellant. 2. The appellant has a factory situated at Bajajnagar, Waluj, Aurangabad, which is engaged in automobile industry. Presently there are about 3250 daily rated workmen and about 360 monthly rated workmen employed in the factory at Waluj. The respondent no.2 is a Trade Union who claims that it enjoys majority support of the workmen. According to the respondent, prior to its emergence as a majority Union, one "Bhartiya Kamgar Sena" was recognized Union. However, the said recognition came to be cancelled by the Industrial Court vide order dated 24th April 2007. The said "Bhartiya Kamgar Sena" had terminated the earlier settlement before it was re-recognized ( 3 ) and thereafter the respondent submitted a charter of demand for the daily rated workmen, so also, monthly rated workmen. The monthly rated workmen are described as "Staff". The charter of demand dated 1-12-2004 was served for all the workmen for wage revision and wage structuring. The said demand, being industrial dispute, was admitted for conciliation by the Conciliation Officer vide order dated 11-6-2007. During the conciliation, a settlement was reached between the appellant and the respondent, in regard to daily rated manual workmen, which was finalized and executed on 23rd July 2007. 3. It is the case of the respondent, that as part of the industrial dispute was settled and dispute for monthly rated workmen was taken up for conciliation. As the conciliation failed to achieve a settlement, the Conciliation Officer submitted his failure report on 8th January 2008. The industrial dispute for wage revision and wage structuring of the monthly rated workmen was referred for adjudication by the Government of Maharashtra, to the Industrial Tribunal, Aurangabad, by an order dated 21st January 2008, which in turn, came to be registered as a Reference (IT) No. 1/2008 and is pending adjudication before the Tribunal. 4. The respondent filed its statement of claim on 10-7-2008 in justification of the demand, whereas the appellant ( 4 ) resisted the claim by filing written statement on 23rd September 2008. On 15-4-2009, the respondent led evidence by way of examination in chief and thereafter the present appellant filed an application seeking the list of members of the respondent Union. The respondent resisted the application by filing its say. After hearing both the parties, the Industrial Tribunal rejected the application and hence aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed Writ Petition which came to be heard by the learned Single Judge and, as stated herein above, though Rule was granted, interim relief came to be rejected giving rise to the filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal. 5. According to Mr. J.P. Cama, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, the Industrial Tribunal, so also, the learned Single Judge have erred in rejecting the application and refusing the interim relief, respectively. It is submitted that having regard to the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (For short, "the Act"), as it stands after amendment to Section 19 of the Act, an industrial dispute, of which the primary object is to establish peace in the industry, can only be at the behest of a majority Union. Our attention is invited to Sub-Section 7 of Section 19 of the Act, to point out that a notice of termination of settlement has to be given by a party representing the majority of the persons bound by the settlement or award, as the case may be. Thus, the submission is that it ( 5 ) only a Union which enjoys majority support of the workmen, who could terminate a settlement. It is contended that in view of insertion of Sub-Section 7, the earlier judgments, holding the field, such as, the judgment in the case of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. Their workmen (1960-I, LLJ. 491 (SC)) is no longer a good law. It is then submitted that if a minority Union is permitted to bargain for and on behalf of a sizable majority, who are not members of the Union, the same would not resolve the industrial dispute and there would be no peace in the industry. Reliance is also placed on the provisions of Section 10(2) of the Act, to contend that the appropriate Government can make a reference only if it is satisfied that the persons applying represent the majority and not otherwise. Thus, placing reliance on the provisions contained in Section 10(2), read with Section 19(7), in the light of Rule 83 of the Bombay Rules, it is submitted that the application moved by the present appellant seeking a direction against the respondent, to submit a list of members along with signatures in original form and supply copy of the same to the appellant, ought to have been favourably considered. It is also submitted that the appellant is entitled to know financial burden that it would be required to bear, in the event, if an award is passed by the Tribunal. 6. Per contra, it is submitted by Mr. T.K. Prabhakaran, ( 6 ) learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, that the membership of the respondent not only comprises of the monthly rated workmen (staff members) but daily rated workers, as well, are the members of the respondent Union. In the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent, it would be highly objectionable and improper to try to ascertain as to whether the respondent Union enjoys support of the majority of the members from monthly rated workmen (staff), leaving aside the large number of members from daily rated employees. It is then submitted that the very fact that the appellant had entered into a settlement with the present respondent Union, during the course of conciliation, in respect of daily rated manual workmen, is clearly indicative of the fact that the respondent Union enjoys support of the majority of the members. It is next submitted that as the appellant has chosen not to challenge the order passed by the appropriate Government, referring the dispute to the Tribunal It cannot now be permitted to raise the said dispute under the garb of an application it has moved before the Tribunal seeking direction against the respondent Union to furnish the names along signatures of its members. The learned Counsel for the respondent has strongly urged that the Tribunal cannot travel beyond the scope of the dispute referred to it for adjudication. Any inquiry with a view to ascertain the membership of the Union would fall outside the reference and hence is ( 7 ) impermissible. 7. In the light of the submissions made herein above, we propose to first advert to the failure report submitted by the Conciliation Officer, dated 8-1-2008. Perusal of the report reveals that when the appellant and the respondent entered into a settlement in regard to wage revision and wage structure of daily rated manual workmen, the settlement in regard to Staff-1 and Staff-2 was not finalized. While referring to the attempts made for conciliation, it is categorically stated that on 8-6-2007, the membership of the respondent Union was ascertained, it being the date on which both the parties were invited for dialogue and discussion. Having regard to the fact that the appellant had entered into a settlement with the respondent Union, in regard to the demands of daily rated manual workmen, it can safely be assumed that the respondent Union was enjoying the support of majority of workmen who would be bound by the award. It will not be out of place to mention that not only the membership of the respondent Union was ascertained by the Conciliation Officer on 8-6-2007, on which date the appellant was also present, but it can be prima facie said that the respondent Union did enjoy the support of the majority of the workmen. The fact that the appellant did not challenge the reference order passed by the appropriate Government on the ground that the reference was not made at ( 8 ) the behest of a majority Union, is also indicative of the fact that the respondent was a majority Union. It is only after the evidence commenced before the Tribunal, that an application came to be moved disputing the status of the respondent Union. We are also of the considered view, that in the pending reference, an inquiry touching the majority or minority status of the respondent Union cannot be ascertained, as that exercise would travel beyond the scope of the reference itself. 8. Both the learned Counsel for the respective parties have referred to various judgments of the Supreme Court and this court. However, we do not propose to deal with the same as we have recorded our finding having regard to the fact situation. 9. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent, when a reference is made under Sub-Section 5 of Section 12, the same need not be at the behest of a majority Union, as is envisaged by Section 10(2) of the Act, whereas according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, Section 10(2) is the sole repository of the power of the appropriate Government to make a reference and, thus, reference can only be made on a request of a majority Union. This controversy need not detain us any further. For the reasons recorded herein above, for the purpose of decision of this appeal, adjudication of the said question is ( 9 ) also not necessary. As on facts, we have held that the respondent Union did enjoy support of the majority workmen, and that as the appellant did not object to the status of the respondent Union, till the commencement of the evidence before the Tribunal, it cannot be, at this stage, permitted to seek information with a view to question the majority status of the respondent Union. 10. We have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The same does not call for any interference. 11. Hence, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed summarily. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( A.P. DESHPANDE ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... Date : 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 12. At this stage, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant seeks stay of the proceedings on the file of the Industrial Tribunal. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has no objection. ( 10 ) 13. Hence, there shall be stay of proceedings on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, for a period of four weeks from today. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( A.P. DESHPANDE ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/LPA198