( 1 ) BOTH these petitions involve a common question as to what is the "local area" for registration as a representative Union for cooperative Banking Industry (hereinafter referred to as the said Industry) under the provisions of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and as such are heard and decided together. The rival Unions who claim to be registered as a representative Union for the local area in question are also common.

( 2 ) THE facts, in brief, in Writ Petition No. 2201 of 1998 are as under :- the respondent No. 2, Yavatmal District Central Co-operative Bank Union was registered as a representative Union for the entire Yavatmal district. However, the petitioner, Sahakari Bank Karmachari Union, Yavatmal applied to the respondent No. 1 for registration as a representative Union in the local areas of Umarkhed Taluka, Mahagaon Taluka, Digras Taluka, Ner Taluka, Babhulgaon taluka, Relegaon Taluka, Kalamb Taluka, Ghatanji Taluka and Maregaon taluka of Yavatmal District Co-operative Banking Industry. It was the contention of the petitioner, in the said application that the said Union was having larger membership and in any case, it was having not less than 25 per cent of the total member of employees, in the said Industry in the aforesaid local areas, as its members and as such it was entitled for registration as a representative Union in the said Industry. The respondent No. 1, after holding enquiry, vide order dated 11th March, 1994, found that the said Union had more than 25 per cent of the total number of employees in the said industry, in the local areas of Umarkhed Taluka, Mahagaon Taluka, Ner Taluka, Kalamb Taluka, relegaon Taluka, Ghatanji Taluka, Babhulgaon Taluka and Maregaon Taluka of yavatmal District, as its members and, therefore, found that the said Union was qualified for registration as representative Union for the aforesaid talukas in yavatmal district. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal before the Learned Industrial Court, Amravati being BIR Appeal No. 4/1994. It was the contention of the respondent No. 2 in the said appeal that the head Office of the Industry was only one i. e. at Akola and that the services of the employees engaged in the industry were transferable from one branch to another and, therefore, the entire Yavatmal district ought to have been taken into consideration as a local area. It was, therefore, contended that the respondent no. 1 ought to have taken consideration the strength of membership in the entire district and as such recognised the respondent No. 2 as representative Union. The learned Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the entire district has to be taken into consideration as the local area for the Co-operative Banking Industry and, therefore, set aside the order of the respondent No. 1 and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 thereby setting aside the registration of the petitioner, Union in the aforesaid local areas of Yavatmal district. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court.

( 3 ) THE facts, in brief, in Writ Petition No. 2082 of 2003, are as under :- that, the petitioner applied for registration of its Union as a representative union for the local areas of Pusad Municipality, Pusad Taluka, Wani Municipality, wani Taluka and Darwha Taluka for the said industry. The respondent No. 3, after holding due enquiry, found that the petitioner/union was having more than 25 per cent of employees, employed in the said industry for the local areas of pusad Municipality, Pusad Taluka, Wani Municipality, Wani Taluka and Darwha taluka of Yavatmal District, as its members and as such found that the petitioner/union was qualified for registration as representative Union in place of respondent No. 2, Union. Vide order dated 25th January, 1994, disqualified the respondent No. 2, Union as a representative Union for the aforesaid local areas and held that the petitio