1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2006 of 2008 Amravati Zilla Sahakari Bank Vs. State Trasnport Coop. Bank Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri Rajan Pillai Adv. for petitioner. Shri Saboo Adv. for respondents. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 13 th May, 2008. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court under Section 30 of the M. R. T. U. & P. U. L. P. Act. The Industrial Court was dealing with the decision taken by the Board of 2 Directors of the State Transport Cooperative Bank for filling in all vacancies which were to be filled by nominations by elections. The contention of the present petitioner before the Industrial Court was that all 4 posts which were reserved for being filled in by nominations could not have been filled by elections and since the petitioner was a recognised Union the nominations made by it should have been accepted. That application came to be rejected by the Industrial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order rejecting the petition filed by the present petitioner before the Industrial Court was not correct. He submits that as far as nomination of the petitioner was concerned, that should have been accepted as there was no dispute with regard to the petitioner Union. 3 Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that there was a dispute with regard to the recognition of the respondent No.2 which is another Union. He submits that present petitioner-Union represents only 8 persons out of 600. he submits that therefore the Board of Directors have taken a decision to fill in the vacancies which are required to be filled in by nomination by way of election. Section 73-BB of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act contemplates that when there is any dispute with regard to the recognition of the Union then such vacancies can be filled in by election. Since Section 73-BB says that any dispute arising with regard to the recognition of the Union the authority has a power to direct that such vacancies shall be filled in by election, therefore, the decision as was taken 4 by the Board of Directors cannot be said to be invalid. Further it is brought to my notice that process of election has already begun. The programme of election has been placed before me which shows that the process has begun on 05.05.08 and the last date of acceptance of nomination paper was 13.05.08. In view of this it is very clear that election process has now commenced and in no case the election can be stopped. I see no reason to entertain the petition. It is dismissed. JUDGE svk