Judgment In this application the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- "(1) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to act according to and in consonance with the provisions and stipulations enshrined in the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926; (2) A Writ of and/or in the nature of pr prohibition prohibiting the respondent authorities from extending with the benefit of 'check off' facility or any other benefits enjoyable by a recognized union, to any Trade Union which is not registered under the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926; (3) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to recognize the petitioners registered Trade Union; (4) Declaration to the effect, that fixation of 40% patronage of total number of executive employees to any Trade Union, for extending the facility of 'check off', is arbitrary, irrational end illegal." 2. The petitioner No.1 is a Trade Union registered under the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926. The respondent No. 3 is also a Trade Union registered under the said Act. Respondent No. 3 is also recognized union of the first respondent. 3. The question which arises for consideration in this application is as to whether the first respondent is bound to apply the provisions of Section 7(2)(kk) of the Payment of Wages Act in relation to the petitioner union when such a facility has been granted to the respondent No. 3. 4. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that keeping in view the fact that the third respondent has been allowed the facility in terms of Section 7(2)(kk) of the said Act there appears to be no reason as to why the petitioner shall be discriminated against. It appears from the letters dated 23rd May, 1995 and 25th August, 1995 as contained in Annexure 'E' to the writ application that a policy decision has been taken by the first respondent to the effect that the benefit of the said provisions shall be available to such union 40% of the executives whereof have become members of a particular association. 5. The petitioner contends that unless the check off slips are produced, it will be difficult to come to the conclusion as to whether the petitioner association have on its roll 40% or more then the said percentage of total number of Officers as its members. 5. The petitioner contends that unless the check off slips are produced, it will be difficult to come to the conclusion as to whether the petitioner association have on its roll 40% or more then the said percentage of total number of Officers as its members. The third respondent on the other hand in its affidavit-in-opposition categorically stated that the number of its members are 16,000 out of a total number of 20,000 Officers as thus about 80% of the Officers are members of the third respondent. 6. Mr. Chowdhury appearing on behalf of the first respondent inter alia submits that no right far less any legal right exists in the petitioner and as such this writ application is not maintainable. The learned Counsel further contends that in any event the policy decision adopted by it as would appear from the aforementioned letters as contained in Annexure 'E' cannot be said to be unreasonable. 7. Mr. Sengupta, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent submits that keeping in view the factual backdrop the petitioner failed to make out a case for obtaining any relief in this application. 8. Section 7(2)(kk) of the Payment of Wages Act reads as follows :- "deductions made, with the written authorization of the employed person, for the payment of his contribution to an, fund Constituted by the employer or a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 for the welfare of the employed persons or the members of their families, or both, and approved by the State Government or any Officer specified by it in this behalf, during the continuance of such approval." 9. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the aforementioned section is an enabling provision in terms whereof, a check off facility is given to individual employee in his voluntary written request and the came shall remain in force till the concerned workman withdraw the slip. A bare perusal of she aforementioned provisions clearly envisages that no union has any right to claim any privilege thereunder. 10. A bare perusal of she aforementioned provisions clearly envisages that no union has any right to claim any privilege thereunder. 10. In this view of the matter there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the fact as to whether the provision of Section 7(2)(kkk) of the Payment of Wages Act would be applicable in relation to a particular employee or not depend upon his volition and in that view of the matter the petitioner cannot be said to have any legal right whatsoever to maintain this writ application. It is now well known that a writ of mandamus can be issued only when the petitioners satisfies the Court that there exists a legal right in himself and a corresponding legal duty in the respondents. It is for the concerned employee to give a written authorization that payment of the fees payable by him for the membership of any Trade Union and it is for the employer to deduct such fees from his wages in terms of the aforementioned provisions. No third party has any right to enforce the said provisions in a Court of law. This aspect of the matter is covered by a Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in (1) State Bank Staff Union, State Bank of India Officers’ Association v. State Bank of India reported in 1989 Vol-I LLJ 554 wherein Venkateswamy, J. (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Division Bench held as follows :- "The format to be given by each individual employee (also extracted above) is in conformity with the above Provisions in the Payment of Wages Act. Therefore, if really the option is left to the individual employee, the question of extending the facility to the unions, recognized or not, pales into insignificance. Viewed from this angle, in our view, the petitioners have no case at all to seek the relief of mandamus or certiorari, especially when the, could not rest them case on any statutory provision." 11. For the reasons aforementioned there is no merit in the application. 12. This application in disposed of but in the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order is to costs. All parties are to act in a xerox certified copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.