18.wp­9069­11.doc jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9069 OF 2011 Ms. Charu Khurana ..Petitioner Vs. Cine Costume, Make Up Artistes and Hair Dressers Association ..Respondents Mr. H.Toor along with Mr. Sanjay Dnabhawane i/b M/s. M & S Legal Ventures for Petitioner CORAM : S.A.BOBDE AND SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J J. DATE : NOVEMBER 21, 2011. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has approached this Court for direction to the respondent to grant membership as a Make Up Artist and Hair Dresser. The petitioner is said to be a Make Up Artist and Hair Dresser under the Trade Unions Act. According to the petitioner, she made an application to the Respondent-Association for registration as a Make Up Artist and Hair Dresser which is mandate of the Federation of Western India Cine Employees (FWICE). The respondent apparently called upon the petitioner to delete the word 1 18.wp­9069­11.doc “Make Up Artist” from the application. The petitioner deleted the word “Make Up Artist” from the said application under impression that she would make another application for a “Make Up Artist” after receiving membership as a Hair Dresser. According to the petitioner, the Respondent rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that they do not grant membership of “Make Up Artist” to female attendants but only to male attendants. It appears from the letter dated 1.10.2009 addressed by the Cine Costume & Make Up Artiste's Association to the President FWICE that the petitioner did not appear for the interview and moreover the Association has framed Rules which disallow a female to work as a Make Up Artist in the interest of Association and not in order to practise discrimination and therefore, informed FWICE that strict action would be initiated in this regard. Subsequently by letter dated 14.12.2009 addressed to the petitioner, the respondent rejected the membership on the ground that the petitioner does not have any residential proof of being in Maharashtra for five years. There does not appear to be any letter addressed to the petitioner rejecting the petitioner's membership on the ground that she is a female. 2. The Respondent-Association is not a “State” or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the 2 18.wp­9069­11.doc Constitution of India. If the petitioner has any grievance regarding the Rules framed by the Association or regarding a membership, she may take recourse to such remedies as may be available in law including an application under the relevant provisions of Trade Unions Act and/or Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. 3. Petition, is therefore, rejected. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ S.A.BOBDE, J. ] 3