-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3898 OF 2008 Nashik Workers Union ... Petitioner versus M/s. Sarda Papers Ltd. ..Respondents Mr. Bhavesh Parmar for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Bapat for the respondents. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. DATE: JULY 24, 2008. P.C. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the Award of the Industrial Tribunal Nashik dated 11th March, 2005, made in Reference (IT) No. 3 of 2001. At the instance of the petitioner union, reference was sent for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra at Nashik, which was registered as Reference (IT) No. 3 of 2001. The demand was in connection with wage scales, dearness allowance, casual leave, sick leave, paid holidays, privilege leave, house rent allowance, medical allowance, etc. The Industrial Tribunal allowed the reference partly by directing the Company to pay the wages to its workers in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act and dearness allowance in accordance with the notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra from time to time. 2. Being aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal, the union -2- has filed this writ petition. 3. The award was declared on 11th March, 2005 and the same was challenged after a considerable period of more than three years. No justifiable reason has given for such an inordinate delay. The delay has been tried to be explained in paragraph 6 of the petition but on going through the said paragraph, it cannot be said that the delay has been explained at all. Subsequently, if the management is taking a particular stand after the award is no ground for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was justified in filing the petition within a reasonable period. It is pointed out by Mr. Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the observations made in the impugned award, some other demands which were raised by the Union has not been considered by the management. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition which is filed after such a belated stage is not required to be entertained. In that view of the matter, without going into the merits of the controversy raised, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he would like to withdraw this petition with liberty that in other proceedings if any such issues arises, the petitioner may be permitted to take all available points in such dispute in future. Mr. Bapat, learned counsel for the respondent states that if any issue arises in future as to whether the petitioner union can represent the workmen of the concerned industry, the respondent may be permitted to -3- take all such available points to point out that the union in question is not entitled to plead the case of the workmen of the respondent. In so far as this aspect is concerned, in any other proceedings, if any such issues arises, the concerned Court may decide the same after hearing both sides in accordance with law and after taking into account all material available on record produced in that case. If any such question comes up for consideration before the Court concerned as to whether the petitioner union can represent the employees of the respondent or not, the concerned Court may decide the same in accordance with law as it deems fit and this Court is not required to go into this aspect of the matter. Whether the impugned judgment would be binding or not is also kept open for the consideration of the Court . Since the learned counsel wants to withdraw this petition with a view to take all available points in the dispute if any raised, both the sides will be entitled to contest the future dispute if any on all available points as per law. Petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.