JUDGMENT : Pendse, J.—Both these appeals are directed against common judgment, dated March 15, 1989 delivered by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1194 of 1988 and Writ Petition No. 2861 of 1988. Appeal No. 1200 of 1989 is preferred by Bombay Port Trust Employees Union and B.P.T. Railwaymen's Union, while Appeal No. 1251 of 1989 is preferred by All India Port and Dock Workers' Federation, Indian National Port and Dock Workers' Federation, Port Dock and Waterfront Workers Federation of India and Water Transport Workers Federation of India. 2. Two questions require determination in these two appeals. The first question is whether the learned single Judge was right in upholding the order passed by Union of India on June 7, 1988 declining to refer the disputes for adjudication. Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in Appeal No. 1200 of 1989, submitted that the learned single Judge was in error in not setting aside the order of Government of India and not making reference for adjudication to the Industrial Court. We are unable to find any merit in the submission. The demands in respect of which adjudication was sought were pre-1985 and pre-1984 demands. After the said charter of demands was lodged there were several settlements arrived at between the Union and the Government. The demand raised on December 13, 1983 therefore became stale and redundant and no useful purpose would have been served by setting aside the order of Government of India and referring the dispute for adjudication. The adjudication would have been an empty formality because the charter of demands in respect of which reference was sought were already settled between the workmen and the employers. In these circumstances, the learned single Judge was right in not disturbing the order passed by Government of India refusing to make a reference. We are unable to find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge and Appeal No. 1200 of 1989 must fail and is dismissed. 3. In Appeal No. 1251 of 1989 Dr. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the learned single Judge was not correct in directing that the Bombay Port Trust Employees Union should be permitted to participate at the negotiations. 3. In Appeal No. 1251 of 1989 Dr. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the learned single Judge was not correct in directing that the Bombay Port Trust Employees Union should be permitted to participate at the negotiations. The learned counsel urged that the Bombay Port Trust Employees Union was the union which is split from All India Port and Dock Workers Union and was formed in the year 1978. Dr. Kulkarni urged that even though the Bombay Port Trust Employees Union enjoys the third highest membership of the employees employed in the Ports in India, still it was not proper for the learned Judge to direct Government of India to permit the split union to participate in the negotiations. The principal contention urged by the learned counsel is that in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India it is not permissible to issue a writ or direction to the Government in respect of policy decision. We are unable to find any merit in the submission. It was in the discretion of the Central Government to permit representation at the negotiation table to any union representing the employees. The Government permitted several unions but left out Bombay Port Trust Employees Union, which enjoys the third highest membership of the employees. The learned single Judge felt that merely because it was a split union, the advantage of making representation on the negotiation table should not have been denied and such denial amounts to discrimination. Dr. Kulkarni referred to the decision reported in Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Limited and Another Vs. Reserve Bank of India,. Peerless General Finance & Development Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Reserve Bank of India and urged that it was a policy decision of Government of India to invite or not to invite a particular union at a negotiation table. Dr. Kulkarni submitted that in respect of such policy decision it is not open for the writ court to issue directions or compel the Government to permit a particular union to make representation. We are unable to find any merit in the submission for more than one reason. Dr. Kulkarni submitted that in respect of such policy decision it is not open for the writ court to issue directions or compel the Government to permit a particular union to make representation. We are unable to find any merit in the submission for more than one reason. Though it is undoubtedly true that in respect of policy decisions the Court will not issue writs or directions to the Government still it is not necessary to disturb the order passed by the learned single Judge, because the Government to whom the writ is issued is not aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge and have not chosen to prefer any appeal. Indeed we were informed at the bar that in pursuance of the order of the learned single Judge the Government did invite the Bombay Port Trust Employees Union to make representation during negotiations. Secondly, we do not find any reason to disturb the "order of the learned Judge even on merits as it is not in dispute that the Bombay Port Trust Employees Union represents a large section of the employees. It is in the fitness of things that such a union should be given an opportunity to represent the employees on the negotiation table. We fail to appreciate what prejudice such direction cause to the appellants, that is All India Port and Dock Workers' Federations, save and except hurting their ego because the, split union is permitted to negotiate with the Government. In our judgment, the order of the learned single Judge is not required to be disturbed and Appeal No. 1251 of 1989 must also stand dismissed. 4. Accordingly, both Appeal No. 1200 of 1989 and Appeal No. 1251 of 1989 are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in each appeal.