IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Digitally signed S A TH U N N O KU T N E S Y HRAO b A T D y H N a t S O K e U U T : E 2 N S 0 H N 2 R Y 5 A .0 O 9.26 WRIT PETITION NO. 2271 OF 2006 All India Siemens Employees Union, a Trade Union registered under the Trade Union’s Act, 1926, having its Office at C/o. Siemens Ltd., Kalwe Works, Post Box 85, Thane Belapur Road, Thane – 400 601. ...Petitioner Versus

1. Siemens Workers Union, a Trade Union Registered under Trade Union’ Act, 1926 having its Office at Gautam Arcade, Basement No.1, Raut Road, Near Daulat Nagar, Kopri Village, Thane (East) – 400 602.

2. Siemens Ltd., a Company registered under Companies Act, 1956, having its factory at Kalwe Works, Post Box 85, Thane-Belapur Road, Thane – 400 601 ...Respondents None for the Petitioner Ms. Suvarna Joshi a/w Mr. Ritik Gupta, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Mr. Sushant Anaokar i/by Mr. P.N. Anaokar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 20^th SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 26^th SEPTEMBER, 2025 JUDGMENT :- (PER : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

1. This matter was admitted by an order dated 5^th April, 2006, which reads as under :-

“1. Rule. Place the matter for interim relief after notices are served.”

2. On 20^th July, 2007, this Court observed in its order that a finding of fact has been recorded by the Industrial Court that Respondent No.1 has a majority membership. Therefore, interim relief was refused.

3. On 2^nd September, 2025, since the Advocates as well as the parties were not present, in the Court hall or even through the VC mode, though the matter was listed under the caption of ‘Prioritised Cases’, we adjourned the matter to 20^th September 2025, for passing orders.

4. On 20^th September 2025, we had passed the following order :-

“1. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner is not present in the Court, as well as, through the video conferencing mode. This Petition is of 2006, which was adjourned on 2^nd September, 2025, with the following order :-

“1. None present for either of the parties.

2. Since this matter is listed under the caption of ‘Prioritised Cases, stand over to 20^th September, 2025 for passing orders.”

2. Today, in the absence of the Petitioner and it’s advocate, the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2, have declined to argue. We called upon them to commence their submissions. The learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 submitted that she is instructed, but her Vakalatnama is not filed.

3. Such lame excuses, in a matter which is 20 years old, cannot be countenanced. This matter, already listed in the prioritised cases list, is repeatedly adjourned.

4. Hence, we would decide the matter by considering the record before us.

5. Closed for Judgment.” FACTUAL BACK GROUND

5. Respondent No.1, Union (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant/Union) filed Application (MRTU) no. 21 of 1994, under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MRTU and ‘PULP’ Act, 1971), on 8^th August 1994, before the Industrial Court, seeking a Certificate of Recognized Union.

6. The present Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner/Union, which is the Non-Applicant no.1), tendered its preliminary written statement opposing the application of the Applicant/Union contending that the Petitioner/Union has majority membership. A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Application was raised vide the said written statement, dated 16^th September, 1994.

7. Respondent No.2, Company (hereinafter referred as to the Company) filed its written statement on 16^th September, 1994, adopting a neutral stand. It informed the Court that the Petitioner/Union represents the staff category. The employees in the undertaking form a unionized category sub-divided into the staff, service staff and workmen categories. Further details were set out in the written statement and it was pointed out that a se