1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDI CTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2566 OF 2000 ALL INDIA MESS KAMGAR SANGHATANA ... Petitioner. Vs UNION OF INDIA & Ors. ..... Respondents. Mr. R.A.Shaikh for Petitioner. Mr. Ashok Shetty for Respondents CORAM : F .I. REBELLO & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATED : 12TH APRIL, 2010 P. C.: 1. The petitioner by the present petition has prayed for a mandamus to direct the respondents other than 10 and 11 to grant recognition to the Petitioners-Union on the basis of Bombay HQ Area basis. A further prayer is to quash the memo dated 24th January, 2000 issued by the Ministry of Defence re-structuring the activities of the unions as discriminatory. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier in terms of a memorandum dated 26th March,1996 there was a procedure for recognition of unions. A union would be recognised if it complied with the conditions 2 prescribed in the rules. The Petitioner admittedly is affiliated to respondent No.10-Indian National Defence Workers Federation. 2. By a office Memorandum dated 24th January,2000 it is noted that based on the consensus it has been decided that area of operation of the recognised Unions of MES workers or in more than CWE will be restricted to CWEs existing on 19th October, 1979 and such unions will not operate in CWEs which came into existence after 19th October, 1979. Further, formation and functioning of unions given in CWEs which came into existence after 19th October, 1979 will be allowed strictly at CWE level. In other words, what emerges from this MES that is that a kind the nature of monopoly has been granted to Unions which were operating at Area level or more than one CWE if they were existing on 19th January, 1979. At the same time, these unions cannot operate in CWE which came into existence after 19th October,1979. In respect of these CWEs unions which came into existence after 19th October,1979 would have the right of representation but,only in one CWE and not an area of more than one CWE. 3 3. In the instant case, the petitioner admittedly has come into existence after 19th October,1979. Secondly, the petitioner has applied to be registered in Bombay area which has more than one CWE. As such, the petitioner in terms of OM of such 24th January, 2000 has no right to be recognised. Ordinarily the matter could have been examined. In the instant case however, the petitioner is member of respondent No.10. Consensus has been arrived at including by respondent No.10. Once the federation to which the petitioner is affiliated has arrived at a consensus, it will not be open to the present Petitioner-Union to challenge the decision of 24th January,2000 unless he is dis- affiliated from the said Union and thereafter moves this Court. This is not the case here. In the light of that, in our opinion, no case is made out for interference. Petition dismissed. Rule discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, J F.I.REBELLO, J 4 MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, J F. I. REBELLO, J.