IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4398 OF 2009 Municipal Labour Union ...Petitioner Vs. Thane Municipal Corporation & Ors. ... Respondents --- Mrs. Neeta P. Karnik for Petitioner MS. Seema Sarnaik for Respondent No.2 Mr. A.R. Pitale for Respondent No.1 ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 18TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. 1. The Petitioner 'Municipal Labour Union' filed an application under section 11 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 seeking registration as a recognized union in the Thane Municipal Corporation. The Respondent No.2 -Municipal Mazdoor Union (Maharashtra) filed an application stating therein that it is proper and necessary party and, therefore, it should be impleaded in the said proceeding. The Respondent No.2 claimed that the majority of the employees were its members. The Petitioner gave its 'No Objection' for impleadment of the Respondent No.4 and, as such, it was impleaded by order dated 12.8.1999 passed by the Industrial Court. 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that they applied under the Right to Information Act on 11.2.2005 seeking information regarding the registration of the Respondent No.2 as a trade union from the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Thane, who informed them by letter dated 7.3.2005 that no union is registered with him. The Petitioner, therefore, filed an application for deleting the Respondent No.2 from the proceedings which were filed by the Petitioner under section 11 of the said Act. The Industrial Court, however, was pleased to direct that the said application be heard along with the main application for hearing by order dated 15.3.2007. 3. The Petitioner again made further enquiries with the Registration Officer in order to find out whether the Respondent No. 2 was registered as a trade union and the Petitioner was informed by letter dated 8.10.2008 that the Respondent No.2 was not registered even with the Kokan Division of the Deputy Registrar Officer under the Trade Union Act. The Petitioner, therefore, filed a review application at Exhibit U-23 seeking review of the earlier order dated 15.3.2007. This review application was also dismissed by the Industrial Court by order dated 3.2.2009. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders dated 15.3.2007 and 3.2.2009, the Petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the first order which was passed by the Industrial Court dated 15.3.2007, the Industrial Court was pleased to reject the Petitioner's application without giving any reasons. She invited my attention to the letter written by the Government Information Officer dated 7th March, 2005, in which he had stated that no union by name of Municipal Mazdoor Union (Maharashtra) was registered with their office at Thane. She submitted that the Petitioner had again applied under the Right to Information Act to the Information Officer, Kokan Division, Mumbai and a reply was given by the said Officer in his letter dated 8th October, 2008 that no such union in the name of Municipal Mazdoor Union (Maharashtra) had been registered in their registration book from 1997. The Deputy Registrar's office under the Trade Union Act, 1926 also informed the Information Officer that after inspected the register from 1997 onwards, it was found that no such union by name of Municipal Mazdoor Union (Maharashtra) was registered. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, therefore, submitted that the Industrial Court, therefore, had erred in rejecting the application by holding that the burden of proving recognition was on the Applicant and that no objection to implead the Applicant No.2 had been given by the Petitioner herein and on that ground dismissed the said application. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in view of the information given by the Information Officer which was evident that the Respondent Respondent No.2 union was not the registered trade union under the Trade Union Act, 1926 and had no right to be impleaded as Respondent No.2 in the said application. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2, on the other hand, submitted that the Respondent No.2 union was registered on 11.8.1987 and the copy of the said registration was annexed at Annexure '1' to the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondent No.2. She submitted that information given by the Information Officer was to the effect that after 1997 onwards in the registers maintained by the Deputy Registrar, the name of the Respondent No.2 Union was not mentioned. She submitted that since the Respondent No.2 union was registered in 1987, its name would not have figured in the registers which were maintained after 1997. She submitted that, therefore, the Industrial Court was justified in rejecting the application of the Petitioner. 6. In my view, since there is a dispute regarding registration of the Respondent No.2 and it would be an issue which will have to be decided by the Industrial Court after evidence is led by both the parties on this point. The Industrial Court, therefore, was justified in holding that since the burden of proving majority was on the applicant union and since the enquiry in the said application has already commenced and at this stage, the question of entertaining the application of the Petitioner for deleting Respondent No.2 from the array of parties does not arise. The Petitioner, initially had given its no objection for impleading the Respondent No.2 as party Respondent to the application. The Respondent No.2 has produced its registration certificate which shows that its a registered union since 11.8.1987. The parties shall adduce the evidence and only thereafter, the finding would be recorded by the Industrial Court. Under these circumstances, there is no merit in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. No case, therefore, made out to interfere with the orders passed by the Industrial Court dated 15.3.2007 and 3.2.2009. 7. Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Under these circumstances, there shall be no orders as to costs. V.M. KANADE J.