Y. B. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-Union has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India complaining of inaction on the part of respondents Nos. 1 to 3, (hereinafter referred to as the respondent Authorities) in not taking action against respondents Nos. 4 to 8, (hereinafter referred to as the respondent Industries) on the allegation that respondents Nos. 4 to 8 are not paying the prescribed minimum wages to their employees which would be payable under The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). 1. 1. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent Authorities to take appropriate action (including criminal prosecution) against the respondent Industries for violation of the provisions of the said Act. This relief presupposes that this Court would arrive at certain specific findings, to the effect that (1) the said Act is applicable to the respondent Industries, (2) that there have been violations under the said Act committed by the Respondent Industries, and (3) that the Respondent Authorities are guilty of inaction although they have been made aware of such violations. ( 2 ) IN the first instance, I may note that this petition involves not only disputed questions of fact, but also highly technical aspects dealing with the chemistry of the manufacturing processes involved in the Soap Industry and the detergent Industry. The affidavit-in-reply filed by the Deputy Commissioner of labour has set out in detail the stand of the authorities on the complaints made by the petitioner-Union. This affidavit sets out the various factual and technical aspects, as also the chemical processes involved in the manufacture of "soap" as also in the manufacture of "detergents" and allied chemicals. Thus, the substance of the affidavit is that "soap" is a separate and distinct chemical substance as compared to a detergent, and therefore the "soap-making industry" is distinct and separate from any other industry manufacturing detergents and allied chemicals, but not soap. Admittedly, the grievances made by the petitioner union pertain to the "soap-making industry" as contemplated by the notification at annexure a to the petition relied uopn by the petitioner. Admittedly, the grievances made by the petitioner union pertain to the "soap-making industry" as contemplated by the notification at annexure a to the petition relied uopn by the petitioner. Looking to the other affidavits on record, which I do not propose to discuss in detail, it also appears that the Respondent Authorities, who are responsible for the implementation of the Minimum Wages act, have looked into the grievances of the petitioner and have also satisfied themselves that so far as respondents nos. 4 to 8 are concerned, no case has been made out for any violation of the said Act. I do not propose to enter into the merits of the decision taken by,the respondents Nos. 1 to 3, for the simple reason that this decision is not the subject-matter of the present petition. Reading the petition as a whole, and also considering the submissions made in the petition in juxtaposition with the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner indicate that the main grievance of the petitioner is the inaction on the part of the Respondent Authorities, viz. not launching criminal prosecution or taking other action for the so-called violation of the Minimum Wages Act. On the basis of the affidavits-in-reply of the concerned Respondent Authorities, I am satisfied that there is no inaction on their part. To be more precise, it is their decision not to take any punitive action against the Respondent Industries which has aggrieved the petitioner. It cannot, therefore, be suggested that the concerned authorities have ignored the complaints of the petitioner union altogether and that they are sitting over the complaints without taking any action in the matter. It may be noted here that the grievances of the petitioner were addressed to the Respondent Authorities in letter form. Apart from the format, which is not important, such complaints did not seek redress from the Respondent authorities under any specific provision of the Minimum Wages Act. Thus, the opinion of the Respondent Authorities, that the facts of the case do not justify any punitive or other action against the respondent Industries, was not a formal decision in any proceeding under the said act. Thus, the opinion of the Respondent Authorities, that the facts of the case do not justify any punitive or other action against the respondent Industries, was not a formal decision in any proceeding under the said act. ( 3 ) THE relevant affidavits filed on behalf of the Respondent Authorities also indicate that, except for one unit of i respondent No. 8, all other Respondent industries cannot be said to be covered by the Notification at Annexure a to the petition, since they are not "soap-making industry". So far as the exception is concerned, this unit is found to have complied with the requirements of the said Act. This appears to be the finding of the. concerned authorities. Thus, there is no substance in the grievance of the petitioner that the concerned Respondent authorities have refused to take cognizance of or action upon its compaints. It is both plain and obvious that the petitioner cannot insist that the concerned Respondent Authorities have refused to take cognizance of or action upon its complaints. It is both plain and obvious that the petitioner cannot insist that the concerned authorities must record a finding in its favour and/or agree with all ,the submissions, and must direct prosecution and/or other statutory action as per the choice of the petitioner. Once the concerned authorities have applied their mind to the facts of the case, not only to the grievance made in the complaints but have also arrived at an objective satisfaction that the grievances sought, to be made by the petitioner union are not sustainable and no other action is called for, it cannot possjbly be said that the concerned authorities refuse to look into their complaints, and/or are guilty of inaction. ( 4 ) IN the context of the grievances of the petitioner on merits, that is to say on the grievance that the concerned industries are paying less than minimum wages, assuming that the Act is applicable. The Act provides for suitable proceedings to be taken out in the manner contemplalted under Section 20 of the said Act. The said section provides for a general scheme for adjudicating upon such and similar grievances, and also provides for adjudication on matters in dispute, including disputes on questions of fact as to whether an industry would or would not be covered by the provisions of the said Act. The said section provides for a general scheme for adjudicating upon such and similar grievances, and also provides for adjudication on matters in dispute, including disputes on questions of fact as to whether an industry would or would not be covered by the provisions of the said Act. Admittedly, this approach has not been resorted to by the petitioner union. Needless to say, this is a statutory remedy available to the petitioner, which the petitioner has admittedly chosen not to adopt. During the course of hearing, ld. Counsel for the petitioner was asked whether he would prefer to adopt this remedy; he however declined and insisted upon pressing the contentions raised in the present petition. This course is adopted by him after consulting office-bearers of the petitioner Union present in court. In view of the fact that an appropriate, statutory and alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, is also another reason why I am not inclined to entertain the present petition. ( 5 ) LD. Counsel for the petitioner also contended that the Respondent authorities should have held that the respondent Industries were covered by entry 16 and Entry 50 of the Schedule (Part 1) to the said Act. Be that as it may, i am not inclined to entertain this contention for the simple reason that this is an oral submission made during the course of arguments, and developed from a new case sought to be made out, which was not originally canvassed in the petition. Furthermore, reliance was not placed upon these entries in the grievances and complaints made by the petitioner before the concerned respondent authorities. Under the circumstances, it was not possible for the concerned authorities to apply their mind to this aspect of the matter. Obviously, the concerned authorities have only dealt with the grievance of the petitioner- union, as presented. 5. 1. I am also not inclined to entertain this contention in the present petition for the simple reason that it necessarily involves disputed questions of fact, namely whether the Respondent industries concerned in the present petition are engaged in any "manufacturing process" within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of The Factories act, 1948. These technical aspects cannot be decided without substantive evidence; this would fall outside the scope of a petition under Article 226. These technical aspects cannot be decided without substantive evidence; this would fall outside the scope of a petition under Article 226. Furthermore, this contention can also be raised and decided in proceedings under Section 20 of the said Act. ( 6 ) NO other points were urged by the ld. Counsel for the petitioner for consideration. ( 7 ) IN the premises aforesaid, this petition cannot be entertained and is accordingly dismissed. ( 8 ) AT this juncture, I am constrained to observe that, throughout the course of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner was put to the option of whether he would prefer to resort to the remedy available under Section 20 of the said act. The said Counsel had also an opportunity of consulting office-bearers of the petitioner-Union, which opportunity was availed of. Nevertheless, this petition has been pressed for the stated reliefs. I am conscious that every petitioner has a right to approach the court and to press his contentions, but not at the cost of public time and after he has been given an indication that the court is not inclined to admit the petition for obvious reasons, which have emerged during the course of discussion, and which have been narrated hereinabove. Every petitioner, whether it be a labour union or otherwise, is equal in the eye of law, and has equal status before the court. Nevertheless, the petitioner herein has abdicated all obligations to act in a responsible manner, has persisted in making irresponsible allegations against the Respondent Authorities, and has persisted in pursuing this petition, as aforesaid, resulting in considerable expenditure of time and money, both to the Respondent Authorities and the respondent Industries. It is under these circumstances that notice is directed to be discharged with costs, quantified at Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) each, in two sets - one set for the Respondent Authorities and the other for the Respondent industries. Rule discharged. .