20.wp.2532.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2532 OF 2009 Akhil Bharatiya Mathadi Transport and General Kamgar Union. ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra and 7 others. ..Respondents. .... Mr.S.S. Pakale, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.M.P. Thakur, A.G.P., for Respondent Nos.1 & 7. Ms.Bharti Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.8. .... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH, AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATED : 9TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C.:- 1. The grievance of the present petitioner - Trade Union is against the order dated 26.12.2008. By that order the workers in tolly-5189 are permitted to do the work which is called varai work of respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6. According to the petitioner, the workers in tolly No.5376 & 5439 who are members of the petitioner should have been permitted to do that work. The issue has been explained in the affidavit of the Board paragraph Nos.10 to 13, in our opinion, are 20.wp.2532.09 2 relevant, which read as under : "10. I say that the Respondent No.4 was carrying on its business at Plot No.71-72, MIDC Turbhe in the year 2007. Thereafter the said business of Respondent No.4 was shifted to Ganpati Mandir, MIDC, Turbhe from March 2008 to May 2008 and from June 2008 to December 2008 the said business was carried on at Auction Hall, Onion & Potato Market, Turbhe. I say that at all the above places and premises the work of varai was done by the workers of toli No.5189 only. The Respondent No.4 has now shifted its business at the premises of Respondent No.3 at D-42. 11. I further I say that the Respondent No.5 was carrying on its business at Cresent Cold Storage, MIDC Mhape, Navi Mumbai since last 6 years. I say that since last 6 years the work of varai of the Respondent No.5 was done by the workers of toli no.5189 only. The Respondent No.5 has now shifted its business at the premises of Respondent No.3 at D-42. 12. I say that the Respondent No.6 was carrying on its business at Plot No.G-3, Swami Samartha Warehouse, Turbhe, navi Mumbai for the period of last 10 years. I say that since last 10 years the work of varai of the Respondent No. 6 was being done by the workers of toli no.5189 only. The Respondent No.6 has now shifted its business at the premises of Respondent No.3 at D-42. 13. I say that after the Respondents 4 to 6 shifted their business at the premises of the Respondent No.3 at D-42, MIDC, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai, the concerned workers of all the three tolis claimed the work of the said Respondent Nos.4 to 6. I say that the Board considered the entire facts and decided that the work of loading, unloading, stacking, etc shall be done by the 20.wp.2532.09 3 workers of the toli nos.5376 and 5439 belonging to the Petitioners and the work of varai shall be done by the workers of toli no.5189. I say that the Board has considered the fact that the workers of toli no.5189 are carrying out the exclusive work of varai since last 1982 at Navi Mumbai and that prior to that they were doing the varai work in Mumbai. I say that the Board also considered that the work of varai is ordinarily separated from the other work of mathadi nature. I say that there are separate tolis carrying out the work of varai and they are called a `varnar tolis'. I say that the Board also considered that the work of the varai of Onion and potato is the specialized work which was carried out by the workers of 5189 with the employers including the respondent Nos.4 to 6 prior to December, 2008." 2. It is clear from the affidavit of the Board that the workers in toli no.5189 are not denied the work and they are also doing the work of different types. Thus by the order, we find no injustice has been done. And, therefore, no interference is called for. Writ Petition is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) (K.K. TATED,J)