1. In an industrial dispute between the petitioners and their employers, respondent 2, which has been referred to the industrial tribunal, respondent 1, an application for interim bonus had been made by the union. From the roznama it appears that this application was kept for hearing on 12 September, 1963. On that date Sri Phadke appeared for respondent 2. Sri Joshi appeared for the union and prayed for an adjournment, since Sri Mehta, who generally used to appear on behalf of the union was out of Bombay. Sri Phadke raised no objection to the prayer for adjournment. The matter was therefore adjourned to 21 September, 1963. On that date Sri Phadke appeared for respondent 2. An objection was then raised to his appearance. The tribunal held that if the union wanted to object to his appearance, it should have done so at the first hearing of the matter and that it was too late for the union to object to his appearance. The tribunal therefore, rejected the application made by the union that Sri Phadke should not appear for respondent 2. Sri Kamerkar, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, has urged that there was no effective hearing of the matter on 12 September, 1963, that on that date only a prayer had been made on behalf of the union for adjourning the hearing as the person in charge of the case on behalf of the union was Sri Mehta who was out of Bombay and that consequently it cannot be said that the union was not aware of Sri Phadke's appearing in the matter. This argument cannot be accepted, because the roznama of the case, of which Sri Kamerkar has shown to us a certified copy, shows that on 12 September Sri Joshi appeared on behalf of the union and prayed for an adjournment on the ground that Sri Mehta was out of Bombay. The roznama further states that Sri Phadke had no objection to the matter being adjourned. These entries in the roznama clearly show that the fact of Sri Phadke's appearance must have come to the knowledge of Sri Joshi, who had appearance on behalf of the union. No objection to Sri Phadke's appearance was then raised. Even though therefore the union had not given express consent to the appearance of Sri Phadke, the union must be held to have given its consent at least impliedly by not objecting to the appearance of Sri Phadke on 12 September, 1963. Thereafter it was not open to the union to object to his appearance. In any case, we do not think that this is a case in which we should interfere.
2. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.