PRAKASH SADASHIV MAHADIK Vs. KOLHAPUR ZILLA SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK KARMACHARI SANGHATHANA, THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, KOLHAPUR ZILLA SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANGH LTD., THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND SHRI C.A. JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Transfer Application in question is preferred by the Petitioner No. 1 to 11 praying therein that Complaint (ULP) No. 278/2000 pending on the file Industrial Court, Kolhapur presided by Shri C.A. Jadhav be withdrawn and transferred to any Industrial Court, except the Industrial Court at Satara. The brief facts giving rise to the case may be stated as follows: - -

(2.) THE main grievance of the Applicants herein is narrated in detail in the Transfer Application in paragraph No. 8, Clause Nos. 1 to 12. The sum and substance of the grievance made by the Applicants is that the Ld. Industrial Court who is Opponent No. 3 herein, erred in granting interim relief in favour of the Complainant and against the Petitioners and Opponent No. 2 Dudh Utpadak Sangh, which order came to be set aside by the Hon'ble High Court. It is contended that the Industrial Court, Kolhapur is hearing the complaint with prejudiced mind and the Petitioners have found that the view adopted by the Industrial Court while deciding the Interim Application Exh. U -2 is not changed. The Petitioners and Opponent No. 2 Dudh Utpadak Sangh has brought on record huge documentary evidence. Inspite of it, the Petitioners bonafidely apprehend that the Industrial Court is likely to give decision in favour of the Opponent No. 1 Union against the Petitioners and the Opponent No. 2 Dudh Utpadak Sangh. It is also submitted that the Industrial Court has bias attitude and showing favouritism to the Opponent No. 1 Union. The Petitioners further state that the Industrial Court is not granting sufficient time to the Petitioners and also to the Opponent No. 2 Dudh Utpadak Sangh, however, it grants time liberally to Opponent No. 1 Union even without taking application from the said Union on record. It is contended that the aforesaid conduct of the Industrial Court leads to discrimination made by him for which reasons the Petitioners herein have bonafide apprehension that the matter would definitely be decided in favour of the Opponent Union and against the Petitioners and Opponent No. 2. One of the main grievance is that while recording the cross -examination of the witnesses of the Petitioners and Opponent No. 2, when the Advocate for the Complainant was asking questions to witness of the Petitioners and the Opponent No. 2, the Industrial Court was waiting till favourable answer don't come during the cross -examination. Initial answers which were in favour of the Petitioners and the Opponent No. 2 and against the Complainant Union were tactically avoided to be brought on record, consequently it compelled the Petitioners to file the present application for transfer to any member of the Industrial Court in the State of Maharashtra except the Industrial Court, Satara for the reasons mentioned in the Transfer Application.

(3.) THE Opponent No. 1 by filing affidavit -in -reply on 13th February, 2002 resisted the Transfer Application and the same may be narrated as follows: - -