: 1 : wp-3351-11=.doc USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3351 OF 2011 Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh .. Petitioner v/s. Maharashtra Rajya Rashtriya Kamgar Sangh and Anr. .. Respondents ......... Mr. R.S. Pai i/b Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the petitioner Mr. L.R. Mohite for respondent no.1 Mr. Vishwajeet Sawant a/w. Mrs. N.R. Patankar for respondent no.2. ......... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATE : 28th JUNE 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned Judgment of the Industrial Court dated 25th February, 2011 passed in Application (MRTU) No.4 of 2007 at Exh.’L’. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of the observation made in paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment, which reads thus:- “The Investigating officer shall accordingly interrogate / question the individual employees, regarding membership subscription paid by them to the applicant union during the relevant period, and submit a report”. : 2 : wp-3351-11=.doc 2. According to the petitioner, this direction presupposes that Investigating Officer would inquire into only about the membership visa viz the applicant Union and no report would be submitted with regard to the membership of the concerned person with the petitioner union. This would be against the spirit of the requirement under the provisions of the Act and the dictum of the Apex Court in paragraph 20 of the judgment in Automobile products of India Employees’ Union vs. Association of Engineering workers, Bombay & Ors. reported in 1990, 344 S.C. 3. The argument though appears to be attractive at the first blush, deserves to be stated to be rejected. The observations of the Apex Court will govern the situation, where both the rival unions are claiming to be recognised unions. In the present case, the petitioner union has not staked its claim to be a recognised union, as such. There is nothing on record to justify that position. Indeed, the petitioner in its written statement filed before the Tribunal has allegedly asserted that it may be considered as a recognised union. However, indisputably the subject application was moved by the respondent union for obtaining declaration to be a recognised union. : 3 : wp-3351-11=.doc 4. Further, the argument of the petitioner that the petitioner has membership of around 350 persons, out of whom 249 persons are common members in petitioner and respondent’s unions does not take the matter further. In this view of the matter, we find no merits in the challenge in this petition. 5. Hence, dismissed. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)