1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9283 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 9283 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 9283 OF 2007 Kalyani Lemmerz Progressive Employees’ Union. .. Petitioner. vs. Kalyani Lemmerz Employees Union & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Adv., i/by Shailesh S. Pathak for Petitioner. Mr. Nitin A. Kulkarni for Respondent no.1. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: 29th JANUARY, 2008. DATE: 29th JANUARY, 2008. DATE: 29th JANUARY, 2008. P.C. . Heard. 2. The petitioner is impugning the order passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Pune on interim application being Exhibit U-8 dated 3.9.2007 wherein the learned Member,Industrial Court, rejected the prayer of the petitioner for directing the Investigating Officer for verification of the record of 2 membership of the opponent no. 2 union. The second order is below Exhibit U-10 delivered on 23.10.2007 when it was sought by the petitioner that the respective applications for recognition be decided together. 3. As far as the respondent union is concerned, their application for recognition is for the period commencing from September, 2005 to February 2006 whereas the petitioner union has been permitted to intervene in the proceedings by order dated 19.1.2007. On the other hand, the petitioner union has also filed an application for seeking recognition for the period commencing from February 2006 to September 2006 and it is submitted that the Court should decide both the applications together irrespective of the fact that they are not for the same period. 4. Mr. C.U. Singh, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner union, drew our attention to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable Vitamins Foods Employees Union vs. Sarva Sharmik Sangh and others, reported in (2006)7 SCC 658 wherein the Supreme Court in the given facts and circumstances, where the applications filed by two different unions for different periods i.e. the gap 18 years and 3 years which were pending before the Labour Court, directed that, in order to avoid confusion in the matter, especially the enquiry under S. 12 (2) 3 read with S. 11(1) of the MRTU & PULP Act, both the applications be disposed of within three months from that date by fixing a common date i.e. 1.1.2006 as the date on which the two applications were supposed to have been filed by modifying the order passed by this Court. 5. Considering the aforesaid judgment, we are of the view that in the present case it will not be proper to treat the two applications to have been filed on a common date as admittedly they are for different periods though they overlap by one month i.e. February, 2006. But, the Member, Industrial Court can be directed to dispose of the two applications within a period of three months from today. We, therefore, do not want to interfere with the impugned orders and dispose of this petition with the direction to the Member, Industrial Court, Pune to dispose of the two applications within three months from today subject to the parties extending total co-operation in the matter. 6. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. 7. The learned counsel for the parties to communicate this order to the Industrial Court. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) 4 (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.)