S.G.SHAH, J. - (1.) SPECIAL Civil Application no.598 of 2015 is preferred by one Uma Co -operative Bank Ltd. as petitioner against the Co -operative Bank Workers Union seeking a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to quash and set -aside the order dated 12.6.2014 in Reference (I.C.) no.1 of 2007 below Exh.55 and also to quash and set -aside the order dated 7.11.2014 in Review Application (I.C.) no.1 of 2014 by the Industrial Court, Vadodara and, thereby, to allow the application at Exh.55 with ancillary relief to stay the further proceedings of Reference (I.C.) no.1 of 2007 pending before the Industrial Court. Thus, it becomes clear and obvious that petitioner has clubbed different issues in one petition. Though it may be argued that clubbing of issues are permitted if parties and issues between them are common, the fact remains that both orders under challenge are atleast in different proceedings and ultimate prayer though it is ancillary, is to the effect that during pendency of the present petition, further proceedings of Reference (I.C.) No.1 of 2007 is to be stayed. Therefore, practically, the petition is to see that reference of the year 2007 may not reach to its conclusion at an early date.
(2.) BEFORE entering into the merits of such petition, it is to be noted that in fact one Special Civil Application no.6960 of 2009 was filed long back by the present respondent against the present petitioner wherein by a detailed judgment dated 15.6.2010, this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice H.K.Rathod) has issued certain directions to the Industrial Court, Vadodara and to decide the Reference (I.C.) no.1 of 2007 within a period of six months from the date of receiving the copy of such order. Therefore, practically, Reference (I.C.) no.1 of 2007 was to be decided by the Industrial Court, Vadodara on or before 16.12.2010. Now, we are in the year 2015 i.e. more than four years have passed, but, the Industrial Court, Vadodara could not decide the Reference (I.C.) no.1 of 2007 for the reasons best known to it. It seems that because of such inordinate delay, the present opponent has filed one Misc.Civil Application no.686 of 2015 in Special Civil Application no.6960 of 2009 in the month of February, 2015 seeking the direction to the Industrial Court, Vadodara to decide the Reference (I.C.) no.1 of 2007 on day to day basis and within a period of six months as per the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court, which is referred herein above.
(3.) IN view of such fact, therefore, prima facie, there is no case for interim relief in any manner so far as Special Civil Application no.598 of 2015 is concerned. If we turn to the merits of the main application, it becomes clear that in pending reference for more than 8 years, the present petitioner has all of a sudden came forward with an application at Exh.55 seeking production of several documents from the other side and when such application was dismissed, the petitioner in fact has challenged the same by way of present petition. It is also clear that once such application was dismissed, instead of approaching this Court at the earliest,the review petition was filed before the same Court, but such review petition was also dismissed by the Industrial Court by a reasoned order. Therefore, at this stage, what is required to be scrutinized, is the legality and validity of such impugned orders under supervisory powers of this Court, when main reference is yet pending.;