Judgment : S.B. Deshmukh, J. Heard Shri M.V. Samarth, the learned Counsel for the appellant/petitioner and Shri B. Lahri, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 – Caveator. 2. This appeal filed by the appellant/petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 710/2011 on 22.02.2011. By the said order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner. While dismissing the petition, on request of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, parties were directed to maintain status quo, in view of the ad-interim order passed by the learned Single Judge on 11.02.2011, such status quo was further continued for a period of 10 days. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant – Mr. Shaha, would submit that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is illegal on facts and law. The learned Single Judge did not consider as to whether the application seeking dismissal of the original dispute filed under Section 28/2 of the Trade Union Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1926 Act” for short), was filed by the appellant / petitioner. There was ad-interim relief granted by the Industrial Court, Yavatmal when the main proceeding along with an application for interim relief was taken up by the Industrial Court. The first order was passed on 21.01.2010 and the said order was confirmed by the Industrial Court, Yavatmal on 27.10.2010, however, while doing so, the Member, Industrial Court has heard the parties and considered their pleadings. The Member, Industrial Court in the said order has made some observations against the respondent, and despite this fact the subsequent order passed by the Industrial Court on an application filed by the respondent was contrary. This contradiction in the orders passed by the Member, Industrial Court was pointed out to the learned Single Judge of this Court, however, the learned Single Judge also illegally dismissed the writ petition. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 3 (caveator) supported the order passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Yavatmal and the learned Single Judge of this Court. 5. Having regard to the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/petitioner, we have carefully considered and perused the compilation of the appeal. The appellant Mr. 1 and 3 (caveator) supported the order passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Yavatmal and the learned Single Judge of this Court. 5. Having regard to the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/petitioner, we have carefully considered and perused the compilation of the appeal. The appellant Mr. Shaha, alleged in the petition bearing Writ Petition No.710/2011 that he was elected as General Secretary of respondent no.1, affiliated to Center of Indian Trade Union meant for WCL workers in Wani North Area. The respondent no.2 Mr. Vijay Rai, according to the appellant/petitioner is the President of the said Union and respondent no.3 Mr. Tajuddin is the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the said Union, the apex body of the Union. According to the appellant / petitioner, there was a dispute regarding the illegal and arbitrary elections allegedly held in the year 2007. A complaint was made by the appellant / petitioner Mr. Shaha to the respondent no.4 – Registrar, who has perused the copy of the complaint (Annexure-A) bearing date 05.10.2007. The respondent no.4 Registrar upon receipt of the said complaint issued notices. Rival groups aspiring for power shared the table for settlement. The settlement was recorded in presence of the Registrar, copy of the said settlement is Annexure-B to the writ petition. It seems that some formula was also worked out for holding and conducting elections for the Executive Committee for Wani North Area on 14.07.2008. According to the appellant/ petitioner, it was resolved in that compromise that the meeting of the General Body would be held under the Chairmanship/President-ship of Mr. Vijay Rai. Final authority of respondent no.2 Mr. Vijay Rai to take decision with the constitution of the Union was accepted by warring groups. The appellant / petitioner raised a grievance that the respondent no.2 Vijay Rai informed that date of meeting as scheduled on 14.07.2008 was not convenient to him, and requested for postponement to a convenient date i.e. 25.07.2008. Such was the communication / letter dated 03.07.2008 addressed by Mr. Vijay Rai. 6. The appellant / petitioner Mr. Shaha, states that accordingly on 25.07.2008 the date convenient to Mr. Rai – respondent no.2, the General Body Meeting was convened. Such was the communication / letter dated 03.07.2008 addressed by Mr. Vijay Rai. 6. The appellant / petitioner Mr. Shaha, states that accordingly on 25.07.2008 the date convenient to Mr. Rai – respondent no.2, the General Body Meeting was convened. The office bearers, all the members of the Committee at area level were elected and this election was communicated with details by communication letter along with the minutes of the meeting to the Competent Authority. Annexure-D is the said communication which we have considered. Mr. Shaha, the appellant/petitioner states that 184 members have attended this meting held on 25.07.2008. It is further stated by the appellant / petitioner that a fake meeting was shown to have been scheduled and conducted and completed under the President-ship of one Ms. Kirti Naidu and in that meeting the Executive Committee consisting of different office bearers was shown to have been elected and accordingly was declared. True copy of that proceeding dated 14.07.2008 is also annexed with the petition as Annexure-E. Obviously this was the claim of the rival group i.e. the respondent no.3 Mr. Tajuddin. Mr. Shaha, the appellant/petitioner claims that the proceedings of the meeting dated 14.07.2008 was contrary to the compromise arrived at between the parties before the respondent no.4 Registrar, and therefore, was illegal and bad in law. Communications therefore, were addressed to the Registrar, having mention in the writ petition filed by Mr. Shaha, was also placed on record. According to the appellant / petitioner, the respondent no.4 Registrar on receipt of the communication has passed an order on 18.11.2008 (Annexure-H). This order is signed by the Deputy Registrar, addressed to the General Manager, WCL, Yavatmal. This is in relation to the complaint of the appellant / petitioner Mr. Shaha. It has been conveyed by this order that the appellant Mr. Shaha's complaint has been received and since the issue of office bearers of Lal Zenda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union, Wani in dispute, is, before him, a further request was made not to initiate any negotiations with any office bearers without his consent. 7. There was no amicable settlement, despite efforts on the part of the respondent no.4 and Mr. Shaha. The appellant therefore, claims that consent was given by respondent no.4, under Section 23[2] of the Regulations for reference of the dispute to the Industrial Court. 7. There was no amicable settlement, despite efforts on the part of the respondent no.4 and Mr. Shaha. The appellant therefore, claims that consent was given by respondent no.4, under Section 23[2] of the Regulations for reference of the dispute to the Industrial Court. Said satisfaction of respondent no.4 is the matter of consent letter dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure-I). The said letter initially was in the name of the Industrial Court, Nagpur, however a corrigendum was issued by respondent no.4 on 17.02.2009 (Annexure-J) and dispute was referred to the Industrial Court, Yavatmal. All these events led Mr. Shaha, the appellant/petitioner to file a dispute before the Industrial Court, Yavatmal. 8. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have perused the copy of the said dispute – Annexure-K [pg.81]. Indisputably the said dispute presented by Mr. Shaha on 21.01.2010 was registered as Dispute (TUA) No.1/2010. The respondents to this appeal are respondents to that dispute. We are not referring to the pleadings in dispute since we have considered the entire pleadings and we deem it appropriate to take notice and reproduce the prayers made by the appellant Mr. Shaha in his dispute. “Prayer : It is therefore most humbly prayed that, I) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that, the Executive Body elected and communicated by the opponent no.3 vide its letter no. LZCMMU/CITU/08/6/55 dated 16.07.2008 is “illegal”. II) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the Executive Body elected and communicated by the Secretary, Mr. Beig by its letter dated 25.07.2008 to the opponent no.4 is legal and the disputant is legally General Secretary of the Lal Zenda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union, Wani North Area. III) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the opponent no.3 had indulged in unfair Trade union practice and be directed to desist from indulging in it hereinafter. IV) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare opponent no.4 to desist from entertaining and extending facilities to the opponent no.1 forthwith. Further the opponent be directed to extent all legal facilities to the disputant and its office bearers. V) the cost of this dispute be saddled on opponent no.3. VI) Any other suitable relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and just be granted to the disputant.” Dispute filed by the appellant/petitioner was followed by an application for interim relief under section 28/2 of the 1926 Act. V) the cost of this dispute be saddled on opponent no.3. VI) Any other suitable relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and just be granted to the disputant.” Dispute filed by the appellant/petitioner was followed by an application for interim relief under section 28/2 of the 1926 Act. Following was the prayer made in this interim relief application. “Prayer : It is therefore most humbly prayed that, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to – I) suspend the effect and operation of the letter no. LZCMMU/CITU/08/6/55 dated 16.07.2008 issued by the opponent /non-applicant no.3 to the opponent/non-applicant no.4 temporarily, pending the decision of the dispute on merits. II) opponent/non-applicant no.4 be directed not to consider and extend any facilities including conducting negotiations on labour issues, to the officer bearers enlisted and communicated to it by the letter no.55 dated 16.07.2008, till main dispute application is decided on merits. III) the opponent /non-applicant no.2 be directed to appoint an ad-hoc committee for the administration of the Union activities including financial transactions, relating to members of the Lal Zenda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union, Wani North Area till the finalization of dispute on merits.” The learned Industrial Court, Yavatmal heard the learned counsel appearing for Mr. Shaha on 21.01.2010 and passed an order of which the operative part we are reproducing herein below. “The effect and operation of the letter dated 16.7.2008 issued by the non-applicant no.3 to the non-applicant no.4 is hereby stayed till next date. Issue show cause notice to the non-applicant as to why ad-interim relief should not be made absolute and grant rest of the reliefs in favour of the applicant. Returnable on 8.2.2010. Sd// Date 21.1.2010 Vidyasagar L. Kamble Member, Industrial Court Yavatmal.” 9. Since the learned Industrial Court, Yavatmal has issued notice with ad-interim stay on 21.01.2010, the respondents have entered appearance and on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 reply was filed on 22.02.2010 (Annexure-M). The application for ad-interim relief filed by the present appellant – Mr. Shaha, was at Exh.U2 and after hearing both the parties, an order came to be passed by the Industrial Court, Yavatmal below Exh.U2 on 22.03.2010 (Annexure-N), which is in vernacular. By this order the Industrial Court, Yavatmal allowed the application Exh.U2 filed by Mr. Shaha, appellant/petitioner. The application for ad-interim relief filed by the present appellant – Mr. Shaha, was at Exh.U2 and after hearing both the parties, an order came to be passed by the Industrial Court, Yavatmal below Exh.U2 on 22.03.2010 (Annexure-N), which is in vernacular. By this order the Industrial Court, Yavatmal allowed the application Exh.U2 filed by Mr. Shaha, appellant/petitioner. The respondent no.4 Registrar was directed that till the disposal of the main dispute at Yavatmal, the election of the office bearers of the Executive Committee held under the President-ship of respondent no.2-Mr. Rai, on 25.07.2008 shall be considered as valid office bearers of Lal Zenda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union, Wani North Area. Costs were deferred to be considered at the time of disposal of the main dispute. 10. After passing of the order below Exh.U2 by the learned Industrial Court, Yavatmal on 22.03.2010 indisputably the application below Exh.UA-16 was filed by Mr. Kailash Nirapure, claiming himself to be the President of Lal Zenda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union, (CITU) – respondent no.1. It appears that by this application below Exh.UA16, prayer was made that in view of the orders passed below Exh.UA-13 by the Industrial Court, Yavatmal, the election of the Central Committee were held on 14.12.2010, and therefore, the original application filed by the applicant (Application TUA No.1/2007) may be disposed of. This application below Exh.UA-16 was heard by the Industrial Court and was allowed. Following is the translated version of the operative part of the order passed by the Industrial Court, Yavatmal. “(1) Application (Exh. No.UA/16 is allowed. (2) Since the dispute raised by the applicant has become infructuous, the said application is disposed of and suitable order is passed in that regard on Exh. U/1. Sd// Date 12.1.2011 (Vidyasagar L. Kamble) Member, Industrial Court Yavatmal.” 11. This order passed on 12.01.2011 by the Industrial Court, Yavatmal in an application (Exh.UA-16) in TUA No.1/2010 was against Mr. Shaha, present appellant/petitioner, he therefore, challenged the said order by filing a Writ Petition No. 710/2011 before the learned Single Judge of this Court. This Writ Petition was dismissed and as we have noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, that the said order passed by the learned Single Judge is challenged in this appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act. 12. From the compilation of the appeal, we have seen Exh. UA-13 (Annexure-O Page No.117). This document is important. This Writ Petition was dismissed and as we have noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, that the said order passed by the learned Single Judge is challenged in this appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act. 12. From the compilation of the appeal, we have seen Exh. UA-13 (Annexure-O Page No.117). This document is important. At the outset we have noted that this application was filed by one Mr. Kailash Nirapure claiming to be the President of respondent no.1. It was on his behalf and also for respondent no.3 Mr. Tajuddin. This application bears date 27.08.2010. This application Exh.UA-13 was filed in TUA No. 1/2010 pending before the Industrial Court, Yavatmal. In this application it was pleaded by Mr. Kailash Nirapure, that the dispute application No. 1/2010 is pending before the Industrial Court, Yavatmal. Said dispute is filed by Mr. Niranjan Shaha, the appellant / petitioner with a contention that the election of the office bearers of the Executive Committee of the Union has been shown to have taken place with the aid of forged and manipulated documents. The Member, Industrial Court had already granted interim relief in favour of Shri Shaha, appellant/petitioner, which needs to be vacated and the General Body needs to be permitted to go for further elections, according to the constitution of the Union. From perusal of this application Exh.UA-13 it seems that photocopy of the application was received by the learned counsel appearing for Mr. Shaha on 06.09.2010. On behalf of Mr. Shaha, the appellant / petitioner who was applicant/disputant before the Member, Industrial Court, Yavatmal say was filed (Annexure-P, page 118). We have considered the contentions raised in this reply/say filed by the appellant / petitioner Mr. Shaha. In this reply prayer was made that the application dated 27.08.2010 filed by Kailash Nirapure and Tajuddin (Exh.UA-13) be rejected. 13. The application Exh.UA-13 filed on 27.08.2010 was heard and order came to be passed by the Member, Industrial Court. This order passed by the Member, Industrial Court is of great significance. It is on record as Annexure-Q (Pg.121). This order is passed by the Member, Industrial Court on 27.10.2010. While passing this order, Advocate S.R. Borse, for disputant/appellant/petitioner Mr. Shaha was present before the Industrial Court and on behalf of respondent no.1 Kailash Nirapure and Respondent no.3 Tajuddin, Mr. Kailash Nirapure himself was present before the Court. It is on record as Annexure-Q (Pg.121). This order is passed by the Member, Industrial Court on 27.10.2010. While passing this order, Advocate S.R. Borse, for disputant/appellant/petitioner Mr. Shaha was present before the Industrial Court and on behalf of respondent no.1 Kailash Nirapure and Respondent no.3 Tajuddin, Mr. Kailash Nirapure himself was present before the Court. In paragraph no.1 of this order, the Member, Industrial Court has recorded the arguments of Advocate S.R. Borse and Mr. Kailash Nirapure. Further observation of the Industrial Court is important. The learned Member, has recorded that both of them have agreed i.e. Advocate Shri Borse and President Shri Kailash Nirapure have agreed that two years official tenure of the office bearers of Lal Zenda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union, (CITU) Wani North Area was over and elections for the further period of two years in view of the constitution was due. Thus, it is an admission on behalf of the appellant Mr. Shaha, made through his Advocate before the Member, Industrial Court that the tenure of the office bearer of the union was over. At this stage it is relevant to take note that Shri Shaha's contention since beginning that the General Body meeting had taken place on 25.07.2008 and the Executive Committee, according to his contention had been elected. Diametrically, opposite was the contention raised by the respondent no.1 and 3, that the General Body meeting of the Union for election of the officer bearer took place on 14.07.2008 and different committee had been elected. Both the parties have however, before the Industrial Court admitted and accepted on 27.10.2010 that tenure of the elected members of the Executive Committee either as per contention of appellant Mr. Shaha or respondent no.1 Kailash Nirapure, has been over and elections for further tenure of two years was due. The Industrial Court had discussed the issue of election along with Advocate Shri Borse for appellant Mr. Shah and Kailash Nirapure on behalf of himself and respondent no.3 Tajuddin and they have consented for holding a general body meeting for election of the member of the Executive Committee and for such election the respondent nos. 2 Vijay Rai was accepted as President of the Central Committee (CITU) and respondent no.3 Tajuddin as General Secretary, Central Committee, and were permitted to conduct the elections. The Industrial Court on the concession by Shri Borse, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. 2 Vijay Rai was accepted as President of the Central Committee (CITU) and respondent no.3 Tajuddin as General Secretary, Central Committee, and were permitted to conduct the elections. The Industrial Court on the concession by Shri Borse, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Shaha, and with consent of Shri Kailash Nirapure who was present, passed an order on 27.10.2010 (Annexure-Q). By the said order, the application Exh.UA-13 was allowed and the Industrial Court further directed non-applicant no.2 Vijay Rai, President Central Committee, Lal Zenda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union, CITU, and Non-applicant no.3 Mohd. Tajuddin, General Secretary, CITU to hold the general body meeting of the union within a period of two months from 27.10.2010, and complete the election process and submit its report on or before 03.01.2011, to the Industrial Court, Yavatmal. 14. The Industrial Court, Yavatmal further directed in this order that the earlier order passed by him below Exh.UA-2 on 21.01.2010 i.e. ad-interim order shall remain in existence until further orders. This order is passed by the Industrial Court, Yavatmal on 27.10.2010. Admittedly the order passed by the Industrial Court, Yavatmal below Exh.UA-13 on 27.10.2010 was not challenged by the appellant Mr. Shaha by filing appropriate proceedings in accordance with the provisions of law. In other words, this order directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to schedule a general body meeting and conduct elections of the Executive Committee has attributed finality. 15. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have perused the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, below Exh.16 in dispute Application No.1/2010. We could not get copy of the application Exh.UA-16 in the compilation of the appeal, but the opening sentence of order passed by the learned Single Judge makes it clear that the application was filed by Kailash/non-applicant no.1 – Union. In view of the order below Exh.UA-13, the respondent no.2 Mr. Vijay Rai and respondent no.3 Mohd. Tajuddin had conducted elections of the Executive Committee by holding general body meeting on 14.12.2010. The process of election of members of the Executive Committee was complete on 14.12.2010 itself and report thereof as mentioned in the order passed below Exh.UA-13 dated 27.10.2010 was submitted. The learned Judge took notice of all these events, considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and arrived at a conclusion that the report submitted by respondent no.3 Mohd. Tajuddin below Exh. The learned Judge took notice of all these events, considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and arrived at a conclusion that the report submitted by respondent no.3 Mohd. Tajuddin below Exh. UA-13 shows the completion of election. The learned Judge has also accepted the affidavit filed by respondent no.3 Tajuddin in this respect. The said affidavit of respondent no.3 is on record at Exh. UA-17. This meeting on 14.12.2010 was presided over by one Kailash Panditrao Bansod. His affidavit is also on record. One more affidavit has been considered by the Industrial Court i.e. of Santosh Chandra De. Fact of the general meeting dated 14.12.2010 and letters issued by the respondent no.3 Mohd. Tajuddin showing the minutes of the meeting, also has been considered by the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court in paragraph no.8 specifically considered the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant Mr. Shaha that the document showing elections dated 14.12.2010 are fabricated and illegal. The finding recorded by the Industrial Court in paragraph no.9 is most important. According to the Industrial Court, even if the Executive Committee allegedly elected in the meeting under the President-ship of respondent no.2 Vijay Rai, dated 25.07.2007 is, accepted as legal and correct, period of two years of official tenure of the said committee has been completed. The Industrial Court has considered the order passed by himself below Exh.UA-13. The said application was allowed and election was permitted by the Industrial Court and two persons namely respondent no.2 Vijay Rai and respondent no.3 Tajuddin, were directed to convene and hold the general body meeting as per the constitution. The Industrial Court thus considering all these circumstances, recorded a finding that as per the report submitted by respondent no.3 Tajuddin, that order passed by the Industrial Court on 27.10.2010 below Exh. UA-13 has been complied with and new Executive Committee has been elected. It therefore, recorded a finding that the main dispute application No. 1/2010 filed by the appellant Mr. Shaha has become infructuous and accordingly allowed the application Exh. UA-16 and disposed of the main dispute Application (CITU) No.1/2010. This order came to be passed on 12.1.2011 and separate order is passed below Exh.1. 16. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we have seen the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 22.02.2011. Shaha has become infructuous and accordingly allowed the application Exh. UA-16 and disposed of the main dispute Application (CITU) No.1/2010. This order came to be passed on 12.1.2011 and separate order is passed below Exh.1. 16. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we have seen the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 22.02.2011. It is true that in the opening sentence of this order, the learned Single Judge has observed that “by this petition, the petitioner impugns that order passed by the Industrial Court on 27.10.2010 allowing the application filed by the applicant before the Industrial Court.....” Factually, this observation of the learned Single Judge that the order dated 27.10.2010 passed by the Industrial Court was on an application filed by the applicant/appellant Mr. Shah, is incorrect. In foregoing paragraphs, we have specifically referred to the application Exh.UA-13 [pg. 117], which was filed by respondent no.1 Kailash Nirapure for himself and for respondent no.3 Tajuddin. The mentioning by the learned Single Judge that the order dated 27.10.2010 is passed by the Industrial Court on Application )(Exh.UA-13) is filed by the appellant Mr. Shaha, in our opinion cannot be said to be so important to overturn the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 22.02.2011. We have considered the entire order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. Reading of the entire order shows consciousness on the part of the learned Single Judge and application of mind, recording all events referred to by the parties. Wrong mentioning of filing of application instead of respondent nos. 1 and 3 i.e. Mr. Kailash Nirapure and Mr. Mohd. Tajuddin, as appellant Mr. Shaha, in our opinion cannot be said to be a ground to upset the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We have also given due consideration to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant-Mr. Shaha, that the earlier order passed by the Industrial Court while allowing interim application below Exh.U-2 on 22.03.2010, records that the general body meeting on 14.07.2007 was to be held under the President-ship of Mr. Vijay Rai. He has requested for postponement and despite this fact the respondent nos. 1 and 3 has misused their power and authority and held the election on 14.07.2008 and got elected office bearers to suit their purpose. Vijay Rai. He has requested for postponement and despite this fact the respondent nos. 1 and 3 has misused their power and authority and held the election on 14.07.2008 and got elected office bearers to suit their purpose. In our opinion, these observations do appear in the order passed by the Industrial Court, in order dated 22.10.2010. However, we do not find any substance in the argument. Two committees have been claimed one by appellant Mr. Shah, elected in the meeting held on 25.07.2008 under the Chairmanship of Vijay Rai and another meeting claimed by respondent no.1 elected in the meeting held on 14.07.2008 under the Chairmanship of Kirti Naidu. There is no dispute amongst the parties that the tenure of the Executive Committee is two years. Period of two years indisputably has been passed over from 14.07.2008. It is also passed over from 25.07.2008. Even if it is considered that the meeting under the Chairmanship of Mr. Vijay Rai allegedly held on 25.07.2008 according to Mr. Shaha, is concerned, the official tenure of two years has been passed over. Apart from this, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant, cannot be accepted for another reason and that is the order passed by the Industrial Court below Exh. UA-13 on 22.10.2010. This order is most important in this proceeding. This order is passed on concession/compromise amongst Shri S.R.Borse, the lawyer appearing for the appellant-Mr. Shaha and non-applicant no.1 Mr. Kailash for himself and for respondent no.3 Mohd. Tajuddin. This is in the nature of compromise decree contemplated under Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. Indisputably, this order is not challenged by Mr. Shaha in accordance with the law, though Mr. Shaha was aware that the order is passed on compromise/concession and there was no scope for raising challenge to the said order. The fact remains that the order passed by the Industrial Court below Exh. UA13 on 27.10.2010 has attained finality. In view of this order, the respondent no.2 Mr. Vijay Rai and respondent no.3 Mr. Tajuddin had scheduled and conducted elections on 14.12.2010, submitted report and affidavit. 17. Turning to the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the deponents i.e. respondent nos. 3 or Kailash Bansod and Santosh De, were not made available for cross examination, also cannot be favorably considered. Vijay Rai and respondent no.3 Mr. Tajuddin had scheduled and conducted elections on 14.12.2010, submitted report and affidavit. 17. Turning to the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the deponents i.e. respondent nos. 3 or Kailash Bansod and Santosh De, were not made available for cross examination, also cannot be favorably considered. This issue has been justifiably dealt with by the Industrial Court in an order passed below Exh. UA-16. In our opinion, the said order ultimately merged in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and cannot be said to be perverse. We do not find any substance in the appeal, the same is therefore, dismissed. With no order as to costs.