1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.821 OF 2010 Santosh Kamble & Ors. ....Petitioners V/s. Kolhapur Zilla Dekhrrekh Sahakari Sanstha & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.Kiran Bapat i/b Desai & Desai Associates for the Petitioners. Mr.M.S. Topkar for Respondent No.1. Mr.P.P. Chavan for Respondent No.2. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 1ST FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. Rule. By consent Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith. 2. The Petitioners have challenged the order of the Industrial Court allowing the application for intervention by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the complaint filed by the Petitioners. The complaint seeks regularization and permanency of 89 complainants. At the outset, it must be clarified that the intervention applications shall be deemed to have been made not by the individual personally, but by them on behalf of the societies that they purport to represent. Respondent No.2 represents Chandgad Taluka Sahakari Dekhrekh Sangh Limited. Respondent No.3 purportedly represents Rayat Vikas Seva Sanstha. Respondent No.2 is the Taluka level society and Respondent No.3 is a multipurpose society. Both 2 the societies are registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. 3. The intervention applications are based on the allegations inter-alia that the reliefs have been sought fraudulently and that the Petitioners and Respondent No.1 may in collusion compromise the complaint. The same, it is contended, would seriously affect the multipurpose society as well as the State Government. If the State Government is affected, it is for the State Government to make an application for intervention. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot be permitted to intervene only for the purpose of allegedly protecting the interest of the State Government. 4. Prima-facie, at least if the appointments are fictitious or fraudulent, it would seriously affect the multipurpose societies at least financially. For instance, if a fraudulent appointment is made of a Secretary, his salary would be debited to the account of the multipurpose society. It is contended that in Chandgad there are 125 societies and only 72 people are validly appointed. Rest of them are either fictitious or not validly appointed. 5. It is not necessary to consider the merits of these contentions. Suffice it to state that the interest of the intervenors would be affected in the event of the appointments being invalid. The impugned order in so far as it allowed the intervention applications calls for no interference. 6. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the intervention application, the earlier interim order dated 1.1.2010 was stayed. The grievance in this respect is to some extent justified. It is justified to the 3 extent that it requires some clarification. The interim order directed Respondent No.1 to pay the wages to the employees who are in service regularly till further orders. It is pertinent to note that Respondent No.1 had itself submitted, as recorded in the interim order that some of the employees are not in the employment of the Respondents. Interim order directs Respondent No.1 to pay the wages only of the employees who are in the service of Respondent No.1. There can be no objection to the same. It must be clarified that the wages can be paid by Respondent No.1 only of those employees who are employed by it. 7. To ensure therefore that only the genuine employees are paid, it is necessary in the first instance for Respondent No.1 to state on affidavit before the Industrial Court as to which of the 89 complainants according to it are entitled to the wages. The affidavit containing details of such employees including their appointments shall be furnished to all the parties including the intervenors. The intervenors thereafter are at liberty to state their objections before the Industrial Court even in respect of such employees. The Industrial Court may, if it thinks it necessary, call for a report from the investigating officer. Respondent No.1 shall pay the wages to those of the employees in respect of whom the intervenors raise no objection. As regards the remaining complainants, the Industrial Court would pass appropriate orders after hearing the objections, if any. The intervenors shall file their objections within two weeks of the receipt of the affidavit from Respondent No.1 stating which of the employees is entitled to the wages. In the event of the intervenors failing to file the objections within time, Respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to release the wages in 4 accordance with the interim orders. The intervenors shall not make any application for adjougnment before the Industrial Court while deciding the application. 8. It is further clarified that the intervenors shall be entitled to raise objections only in respect of those employees who are within Chandgad Taluka and Respondent No.3 society. 9. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.