:1: IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1693 OF 2007 Damani Shipping Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner. Vs. Dy. Registrar of Trade Unions and anr. ..Respondents. Mr. M.S.Topkar i/by Mr. A.B. Shinde for the Petitioner. Mr. Shekhar Ingawale, A.G.P. for the Respondent No.1. Ms. Shobhana Gopal for the Respondent No.2. CORAM :F.I.REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATE : 25th November,2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The petitioner is a private limited company. The respondent No.2 claiming to be the registered union has approached this court challenging the order of the Registrar of Trade Union dated 17.4.2006 whereby the registration of the union has been restored. The reasons given for restoration is that the notices were not served at the registered office of the union. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 union also points out that, in terms of the order of this court notice has been sent by RPAD which was not addressed at the changed address. Law of procedure reveals that if the order dated 17.4.2006 is considered to be the order passed reviewing the earlier order passed on 26.8.2004. In Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and ors. reported in (1981) I L.L.J. 327, the learned Supreme Court has recognised this principle. :2: The procedural review is inherent every court, tribunal or quasi tribunal and distinct from the substantive review which has to be specifically conferred. Failure to give notice in the manner prescribed is a defect in procedure. 2. In our opinion, if the petitioner wants to raise any objection to the grant of registration of respondent No.2 Union, it will be open to them to file objection before the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 thereafter, after hearing the petitioner and the respondent No.2 including objection that the petitioner has no locus standi, to hear and dispose of the same. The entire exercise to be completed within three months from the date of the copy being served by the petitioner and the respondent No.2. The petitioner and the respondent No.2 to appear before the Respondent No.1 on 11.12.2008 at 11.00a.m. for further directions. 3. Rule is discharged accordingly. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) ( F.I. REBELLO,J.)