dmt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5471 OF 2010 Co-operative Bank Employees Union .... Appellant. V/s. Nashik District Co-operative Bank Employees Union, C/o. Central Bank. ... Respondent Mr. M.S. Topkar for Appellant. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP., for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE : 24th MARCH, 2011 P.C. This appeal is directed against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 10th January, 2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 5471 of 2010 under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the BIR Act”). 2. Under the B.I.R. Act, only the representative union of the employees can take the cause of the concerned workmen. The case of the appellant union is that in the year 1994 it was granted status of representative union in place of respondent union, which was challenged by the respondent union in an appeal filed before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court allowed the appeal of the respondent by holding that the respondent union represents majority of the workmen and it is required to be considered as the representative union. That order was challenged by filing a writ petition herein and the said order of Industrial Court was stayed and liberty was granted to the respondent union to apply afresh. The Court is informed by the learned counsel that that petition is pending. 3. The respondent union preferred an application under Section 16. The appellant union however took objection before the Asst. Registrar that the said application is not maintainable as it is filed within prohibited period of one year. The Assistant Registrar allowed the said application against which the appellant union preferred an appeal before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court allowed the said appeal and set aside the order of the Asst. Registrar on the ground that it is not maintainable against which a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 5471 of 2010 was filed by the respondent union. The learned Single Judge while deciding the petition, observed in para 13 thus :- “13. The contention of Mr.Topkar that the application was not maintainable because of the provisions of Section 16 and the embargo envisaged under that provision, is not sustainable. The representative status was granted to the respondent union in the year 1994. Although the Industrial Court had allowed the appeal and restored the status of the petitioner union as a representative union, that order was stayed by this Court. As a result of the stay granted, the order of the Registrar continued to exist despite the order of the Industrial Court. Since the order of the Registrar was passed on 4.3.1994, it was always open for the petitioner union to file an application for being granted the status of a representative union by seeking cancellation of that status conferred on the respondent union by the order of the Registrar dated 4.3.1994. The submission of Mr.Topkar that the petitioner union had to wait for two years from the date on which this Court stayed the order of the Industrial Court is without merit.” 4. The grievance of the appellant union is that since the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 16 is within three months, that application is not maintainable. In this behalf it is required to be noted that initially, the appellant union was granted representative status as back as in 1994. In our view, that will not bar the fresh application which is made under Section 16 though it is argued by Mr. Topkar that it should have been after one year. The appellant Union was granted status of representative union as back as in 1994. In that view of the matter, since considerable time has passed thereafter, the application given under Section 16 cannot be said to be pre-mature and ultimately status of representative union is to be decided from the evidence on record as the representative union is the only union which can represent the workmen under the BIR Act. 5. In our view, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. We do not find any substance in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)