0606wp649.11.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.649 OF 2011 Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. ..vs.. Maharashtrta Motor Kamgar Sangh ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr.V.G.Wankhede Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.M.B.Joshi, Adv. for the respondent. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 6th June, 2011. By the above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner – Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation takes exception to the order dated 5/4/2010 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Chandapur, by which the preliminary issue as regards maintainability of the complaint was decided. By the said impugned order, it was held that the petitioner, which is a registered Union though not a recognized Union has locus standi to file the complaint alleging unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.P. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The Industrial Court has cited the reasons as to why the complaint is maintainable at the behest of the respondent no.1 – Union. In my view, it is not necessary to consider the challenge as regards the locus standi of respondent no.1 – Union to file the said complaint at this stage, as it would be 0606wp649.11.odt 2 open for the petitioner to challenge the impugned order at the time of challenging the final order if the same is passed against the petitioner. Therefore, leaving the contentions of the parties open as regards the locus of respondent no.1 – Union to file the complaint, for being agitated at the time of the challenge to the final order, the above writ petition is disposed of. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – M.S.R.T.C. does not have any serious objection for the above course of action being followed. Writ petition disposed of JUDGE chute