1 Wpl126-11 dmt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 126 OF 2011 Rashtriya Kamgar Union. ... Petitioners. V/s. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. J.P. Cama, Sr. Adv., i/by Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for petitioners. Mr. K.S. Bapat for the respondent no.1. Mr. R.S. Pai with Atman Mehta i/by Haresh Mehta & Co. for respondent no.2. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE : 31st JANUARY, 2011 P.C. By way of this petition, the petitioner union has challenged the interlocutory order dated 23rd December, 2010 passed by the Member, Industrial Court below Exhibit U-11 to the effect that in order to verify the membership of the union in connection with the 304 common members of the respective unions as appearing in the report of the Investigating Officer, interrogation should be conducted of the said workers. While disposing of the application at Exhibit – 11, following order was passed by the Member, Industrial Court. 2 Wpl126-11 ORDER 1) Application, Exh. U-11, is allowed as under : The Investigation Officer Shri A.P. Dhole, in addition to the report which he had already submitted below Exh. O-8, shall question the members who are found common (304 in number) in the register of both unions as its members and to verify as to which of the two unions the membership subscription was paid by them during the relevant period and this be done in presence of at least one representative of union i.e. applicant union and non-applicant No. 2 union. He shall not, however, repeat the exercise of verifying the registrar and host of other Acts regarding which he has submitted report Exh. O-8. He shall restrict himself to interrogate and question them by preparing necessary questionnaire for the purpose of interrogation to verify as to whether a particular employee who is shown common to both the unions as its member has paid membership subscription either to the applicant union or to the non-applicant No. 2 union during the relevant period. 3 Wpl126-11 2. The Investigating Officer shall then submit his report to this Court as an supplementary report to original report Exh. O-8. This report shall be prepared with interrogation of the members as stated above by referring to report Exh. O-8 already submitted. With this direction the application stands disposed of.” 2. Mr. Cama, learned senior counsel appearing for the rival petitioner union, vehemently submitted that such procedure cannot be ordered to be adopted by the learned Judge and the same is dehors the provisions of the Act. He submitted that there is no question of physical interrogation of the workers in order to find out as to which union they belong. In our view, since the petition is filed purely at an interlocutory stage. this Court would not like to intercept the proceedings at this stage. Mr. Cama, the learned senior counsel submitted that the point which he has raised in this petition be kept open if the petitioner is required to challenge the ultimate decision of the Industrial Court in case the said decision is against the petitioner. The said point is kept open in so far as the future proceedings are concerned. Suffice it to say that this Court would not like to intercept the proceedings at such interlocutory stage. In case, ultimately the decision of the Industrial Court is against the petitioner the said decision may not be implemented for a period of two weeks from the passing of the order so that if the petitioner wants to take further proceedings it can do so. 4 Wpl126-11 3. At this stage, Mr. Cama, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, suggested that without prejudice to his rights and contentions about the procedure regarding verification process, the Investigating Officer may interrogate the concerned workmen independently and without the presence of the representative of either union. Mr. Bapat, the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 says that he has taken instructions and he has no objection if the Investigating Officer is permitted to interrogate the concerned workmen independently and without the presence of the representative of either union.. In view of the same, the order of the Industrial Court dated 23rd December, 2010 is modified to the effect that the interrogation of the concerned workmen can be carried out by the Investigating Officer but not in the presence of the representative of either union. 4. Subject to what is stated above, the petition stands disposed of. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.