1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.214 OF 2010 ... Bharatiya Kamgar Sena ...Petitioner v/s. Hind Kamgar Sanghatana anr anr. ...Respondents ... Mr.M.D.Nagle for the Petitioner. Mr.R.D.Bhatt for Respondent No.1. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & A.R.JOSHI, JJ DATED: 24th February,2010 P.C.: 1. By this petition the Petitioners challenge the order dated 9-12-2009 passed by the Industrial Court in an Application M.R.T.U.7/2008. By that order the application 2 filed by the Investigating Officer dated 9-12-2009 requesting the court to grant permission to go to the office of the Company to prepare interrogative list of the members who are found to be common members of both the Unions. Admittedly, the copy of this application is given to the Petitioner. The Petitioner neither submitted its say on the application to the court nor did the Petitioner seek time to file its reply to oppose the application. In the absence of any opposition from the Petitioner, the court granted the application. We see nothing wrong with the order of the learned Judge. 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in view of the application, copy of which is at Exh.E, filed by the Petitioner before the learned Judge on the same day i.e. 9-12-2009, the learned Judge should not have 3 granted that application. 3. In our opinion, the submission is not well founded. The application at Exh.E is filed on the same day and is pending consideration before the court and what is being done pursuant to the order, which is impugned, is only investigation is being done. Nothing final is happening because of the order which is impugned in the petition. In other words, it is merely an interlocutory order. In this view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, petition cannot be entertained. It is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (A.R.JOSHI, J.)