-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.2337 OF 2009 Rama Petro Chemicals Ltd. Employees Union, Through Shri P.M.Mhatre, Secretary : Petitioner (Orig.Applicant/ 2nd Party) V/s. Rama Petro Chemicals Ltd. : Respondent (Orig.Opponent/ 1st Party) ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.888 OF 2009 The Secretary, Rama Petrochemicals Staff Association Madhukar G. Mundhe : Petitioner V/s. Rama Petrochemicals Ltd. : Respondent ... Mr.Anilkukar Patil for the petitioners. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 16, 2009. P.C. 1. Both these petitions can be disposed of by this common -: 2 :- order since the grievance of the petitioners in both the petitions is identical, viz., that the learned Labour Court, Mahad, ought not to have dismissed their applications for restoration of the original references. 2. The petitioners applied under rule 26(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 for restoration of the original references. The prayer was to set aside the awards and to permit the petitioners to lead evidence. The learned Labour Court has observed that the applications cannot be allowed since even before they were filed, the registration of the Union was cancelled on 31.10.2002. Subsequently, the application for re-registration has also not been allowed. 3. The Labour Court applied section 3(17) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, which defines a "union" as a trade union of employees which is registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Further, the Labour Court has relied on the decision of this Court in Ambika Silk Mills Co. Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union & Anr. (1998 I CLR 425) in which this Court observed in paragraph 9 as follows:- "The legal position is thus no more res integra and the Apex court in unequivocal terms has laid down that the union other -: 3 :- than a representative union cannot appear in proceedings relating to all unfair labour practices other than those specified in item Nos.2 & 6 of Sc.IV." The Labour Court has further relied on the decision of this Court in Tata Hydro-Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Tata Hydro Companies Employees Union & Ors. (1998 I CLR 689) in which this Court observed in paragraph 13 as under:- "In respect of the rights which are conferred on the recognised union an employee cannot ventilate his grievance in respect of the right on his own and such a right can only be ventilated by the recognised union." 4. There is no reason to interfere with either of the orders since both the orders are passed on the principle that an application by a Union or Association which is not registered at the time of the application is not maintainable. Both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. -: 4 :- S.A. BOBDE, J.