(1) WP 8278.2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8278 OF 2010 Vaidyakiya Karmachari Sanghatana, Ahmednagar PETITIONER VERSUS Pravara Medical Karmachari Sangh and anr. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. L.V. Sangit, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for the Respondent no.1 None present for respondent no.2 though served. ..... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 10TH MARCH, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard Sangit for the petitioner and Hon for the respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 is employer and they have chosen not to appear though they are served. 2. Respondent no.1-Union filed application under section 14 of The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 for grant of recognition to it in place of present petitioner-Union. In that (2) WP 8278.2008 proceeding, both the parties completed their evidence and thereafter also advanced final arguments. At the stage of delivery of judgment, the learned Member of Industrial Court found that verification of membership was essential and therefore suo-motu appointed Investigating Officer working with it as Commissioner. 3. According to Shri Sangit, when due opportunity was given to parties and evidence was adduced, the learned Member of Industrial Court had no option but to deliver final judgment. He contends that no opportunity could have been given to parties to fill in any lacuna. According to Shri Hon, after due application of mind as the matter pertained to grant of recognition, learned Member of Industrial Court found it necessary to verify the membership by counter-checking the records and for that purpose the appointment of Investigating Officer has been ordered. He states that as issue like recognition is involved, liberty taken by Industrial Court cannot be said to be misplaced and use of discretion by Industrial Court needs to be maintained. (3) WP 8278.2008 4. After hearing respective counsel, I am satisfied that the entire exercise which Industrial Court has now proposed, should have been undertaken during course of evidence. After receipt of appropriate report from Investigating Officer, the same could have been challenged by aggrieved party and there could have been material on record before the Industrial Court to appreciate it. Appointment of Investigating Officer at this stage is nothing but re-opening of entire trial. I therefore find that Industrial Court has permitted the party to fill in lacuna on record. The use of discretion, therefore, cannot be said to be justified. The impugned order dated 20.8.2010 passed by Industrial Court in Application M.R.T.U. 1 of 2007 is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute. No costs. Interim order stands vacated. Sd/- [B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] arp