(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1379 OF 1994 1. M.S.E.B. Officers" Association, a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, having its office at C/o. K.G. Yadav, Plot No. 36/B-2, Vidya Niketan Colony, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. 2. Kisan s/o. Girijappa Yadav, Age : 43 years, Occupation : Service in M.S.E.B., Joint Secretary of Petitioner No.1, Indian Inhabitant Residing at Plot No. 36/B-2, Vidya Niketan Colony, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. .. Petitioners. versus 1. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, an Authority constituted under the provisions of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, having its office at 3rd Floor, Hongkong Bank Building, M.G. Road, Hutatma Chowk, Bombay. (2) 2. M.S.E.B. Workers' Federation, a trade union registered under the provisions of Trade Unions Act, 1926, having its office at Co. Parwans Bhavan, 44, King Way, Nagpur. 3. Maharashtra Veej Kamgar Mahasangh (BMS), a trade Union registered under the provisions of Trade Unions Act, 1926, having its office at 185, Shaniwar Peth, Dhadkewade, Pune-30. 4. Maharashtra State National Electrical Workers Federation (INTUC), a trade Union registered under the provisions of Trade Unions Act, 1926, having its office at C.O. No.3, Kiard No.18, Tulsibag, Nagpur - 440 002. 5. Subordinate Engineers' Association, a trade union registered under the provisions of Trade Unions Act, 1926 and having its office at Rajkamal Chowk, Mairal Wada, Amraoti. 6. Tantrik Kamgar Union, a trade union registered under the provisions of Trade Unions Act, 1926, having its office at Taj Manzerd, Bhadkal Gate, Opposite I.T.I., Aurangabad - 431 001. 7. The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondents. (3) ....................... Mr. A.D. Rajput, Advocate, holding for Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R.P. Powar, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Mr. S.K. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.2. Mr. L.V. Sangit, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate, for respondent no.3. Mr. Pradeep Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent no.4. Mr. D.G. Lathkar, Advocate, for respondent no.5. Mr. Umakant Patil, Advocate, for respondent no.6. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.7. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 7TH JUNE 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to hold discussion with them, (4) relating to service conditions of Non-Technical Officers of respondent no.1 and further writ of mandamus, directing the respondent no.1, not to negotiate the matter relating to the service conditions of Non-Technical Officers of respondent no.1 with respondent nos.2 to 6. 2. It is the contention of the present petitioners, that the settlement in the year 1990 was held without negotiating with the petitioner / Union. The said settlement has already been challenged by the present petitioners by way of Writ Petition No. 339/1990. From the perusal of the prayer clauses, it is clear that no cause of action has arisen to file the present petition. 3. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as being without cause of action. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1379