1 612.11 SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.612 OF 2011 Shri Arun S.Ambre ...Petitioner Versus Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Kamgar Sangh & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.M.M.Thorat i/b Mr.Ashok Shetty for Petitioner. Mr.V.P.Vaidya for Respondents 1 & 2. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED:- JUNE 14, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This Petition takes exception to the Judgment and Order of the Industrial Court, Mumbai (ICTU) No.7/2004. By the said Application, the petitioner made grievance that the respondent Union has illegally removed him from primary membership. Presumably, on the basis of the Resolution passed by the Body on 21st and 22nd April, 2003. At the same time, the case of the petitioner was that the expulsion was only on paper. His membership subscription was collected by check off system even after the impugned Resolution. He asserted that he continues to be a member of the Union. 2 612.11 3. To buttress this stand, it was asserted by the petitioner that expulsion from primary membership can be resorted to only by the President after following procedure prescribed in the Constitution, in particular, in Clause 5(iv). That procedure admittedly has not been followed. This fact asserted by the petitioner is not in dispute. Even the Counsel for the Union in all fairness accepted before us that no formal notice was issued to the petitioner before passing of the Resolution by the Body. The case of the Union, however, is that because of the activities of the petitioner, the members present in the meeting impromptu decided to expel the petitioner from the primary membership of the Union. The fact remains that even thereafter the Union has been accepting the membership subscription of the petitioner and which was collected by check off system till recently. That presupposes that the Union has not acted upon the Resolution passed in the meeting which took place on 21st/22nd April, 2003. 4. The above position is fairly accepted by the Counsel appearing for the Union. In that sense, the grievance of the petitioner that he has been illegally expelled by the Union does not survive for consideration. In other words, as is agreed by the learned Counsel for the respondent Union on 3 612.11 instructions of the authorised officer of the Union, who is present in Court today, the Union has no difficulty in allowing the petitioner to discharge his rights and duties as primary member of the Union, provided, the petitioner clears entire arrears of membership subscription. Petitioner who is present in Court. He undertakes to pay the membership subscription within two weeks from today. 5. In view of the above, the Petition is disposed of on the basis of agreement arrived at by the parties as recorded hitherto. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)