KAMGAR UTKARSHA SABHA Vs. GHATGE PATIL TRANSPORT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE returnable forthwith Respondents waive service through respective Advocates.

(2.) AFTER having perused the record and heard the learned Advocates for all the parties, we are satisfied that the reasons given by the State Government for refusing reference vide order dated January 9, 1998 are neither relevant, nor germane.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that in 1995, when the demands were raised by the petitioner Union, the petitioner Union represented the majority of workmen in Mumbai, Thane and Bhiwandi. It is also not in dispute that the Kolhapur establishment of the 1st Respondent is entirely different from the ones at Mumbai, Thane and Bhiwandi. The recognition obtained by the 4th Respondent under Chapter III of M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act could not enure for the latter three establishments of the 1st Respondent.