1 wp9397.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.9397 OF 2010 Suresh B. Shinde & Ors. : Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents .... Mr.Jatin Sheth for the petitioners. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent no.1. Mr.S.K.Talsania, Senior Advocate, i/b. Sanjay Udeshi & Co., for respondent no.3. Mr.Arvind Topale for respondent no.5. .... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE : APRIL 08, 2011. P.C.: Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The substance of the relief claimed in this petition is that the respondent no.3 to furnish production norms to the petitioners. The production norms are already made known to the workmen which fact is stated in the settlement dated 24.3.2001. It is not the case of the petitioners that the said norms have undergone change. Besides, the production norms are displayed at the working place from time to time 2 wp9397.10 which position is required to be examined by the Labour Commissioner. It is not the case of the petitioners that the Labour Commissioner has not paid a visit to the factory or has raised the query as to why such norms have not been displayed at the given point of time. We are in agreement with the counsel for the respondent-company that the petition is a mischievous petition filed by the petitioners without disclosing as to which norms have not been furnished to the workmen. In any case, the grievance of the petitioners will have to be redressed by the recognized Union. If the petitioners so desire, they may pursue their remedy through their Union. It is not a case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 3. Petition is dismissed. (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.) (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)