ORDER Alok Aradhe, J. 1. This intra-court appeal arises from the order dated 24.2.2009 passed by learned Single Judge by which writ petition preferred by the Appellants has been dismissed. 2. Facts giving rise to filing of the instant appeal, briefly stated, are that the Appellant claims to be the oldest union engaged in the coal industry. It was registered on 15.8.1947 with the Registrar of Trade Unions under the provisions of Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Union was initially registered as Chhattisgarh Colliery Workers' Federation. The name of the Appellant-Union has changed from time to time in accordance with the provisions of Section 23 of the Act. The Appellant-union claims to have mass following of about 21000 odd workers working in the collieries situate in the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. The Appellant-union being the oldest Trade Union has been participating in the industrial relation meeting with the Respondent-Management since long. The Appellant has been enjoying the check-off facility since 1986 under the provisions of Section 7(2)(KKK) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Guidelines were issued vide communication dated 20/23-6-2000 in relation to Trade Unions availing the facility of check-off system. In the aforesaid guidelines it was clarified that check-off system is applicable only in respect of Unions which are under the industrial relations system including the Appellant. However, Respondent No. 3 in premeditated manner circulated distorted version of the decision taken in the meeting dated 13.7.2007 and permitted verification of the authorization forms submitted in favour of affiliates of Central Trade Unions. 3. The Appellants being aggrieved by the said communication which had the effect of depriving the Appellants of their legitimate right, submitted a representation (Annexure-P-6 annexed with the writ petition) to the Management. In the meanwhile, Management accepted the participation of Respondent No. 7 i.e. South Eastern Koyla Mazdoor Congress vide Annexure-P-6A annexed with the writ petition. It is averred that membership of Respondent No. 7 is much below the strength of membership of the Appellant-union. Being aggrieved by communication dated 14.7.2007, the Appellants filed the writ petition seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 14.7.2007, Annexure-P-5. It is averred that membership of Respondent No. 7 is much below the strength of membership of the Appellant-union. Being aggrieved by communication dated 14.7.2007, the Appellants filed the writ petition seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 14.7.2007, Annexure-P-5. The Appellant also prayed for writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to permit the Appellant to participate in the meeting with the Respondents under the industrial relations system and to restore the check-off facility under the Payment of Wages Act. The Appellants also sought the relief of quashing of Annexure-P-6A by which Respondent No. 7 was permitted to participate in industrial relations system. 4. Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 filed the return in which, inter alia, it was contended that the Appellant has neither any statutory nor any legal right for seeking writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. An objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was also raised. It was pleaded that disputed questions of fact are involved in the writ petition which cannot be adverted to in the writ petition. It was further stated that provisions of Payment of Wages Act have no application to the individual as the wages of the employees engaged in the coal industries are more than Rs. 6500/- per month. It was also stated that no writ can be issued for enforcement of check-off system. Respondents No. 1 to 3 also raised the objection that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, as the Appellant is challenging the communication dated 14.7.2007 (Annexure-P-5) issued by the General Manager (IR/Legal) from Bilaspur. It was further pleaded that coal industry was nationalized 01.5.1973. In view of the instructions from Union of India, the Coal Mines Authority and subsequently Coal India Limited has decided to form a Joint Consultative Committee for coal industry. The workers were to be represented by five Central Trade Unions, namely, INTUC, AITUC, CITU, BMS and HMS. It is further pleaded in the return that industrial relations system in SECL is governed by the Code of Conduct. As per the Code of Conduct any break away group of expelled person of any signatory union shall not be entertained/encouraged by the signatory organization to this Code. It is further pleaded in the return that industrial relations system in SECL is governed by the Code of Conduct. As per the Code of Conduct any break away group of expelled person of any signatory union shall not be entertained/encouraged by the signatory organization to this Code. The Appellant has been expelled from INTUC and its affiliation from INTUC has been suspended. It is also averred that deduction under check-off system is only to the unions which are functioning under the industrial relations system. The functioning of industrial relations system is based on Code of Conduct and recognition of any union as affiliate of the central union is to be decided by the Apex Organization. 5. Respondent No. 4 has filed return in which, inter alia, objection with regard to maintainability of the instant writ petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction has been raised. It has further been pleaded that petition is liable to be dismissed on account of non-joinder of necessary parties. The dispute with regard to election of office bearers is pending before the State Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh and, therefore, if any direction is issued in the writ petition, it will adversely affect the decision in the case which is pending before Industrial Court. 6. Respondent No. 5 has filed return, inter alia, contending that he has been impleaded without there being any justification. There is neither any allegation against the Respondent No. 5 nor any relief has been sought against Respondent No. 5. Similar stand has been taken by the Respondent No. 6 in his return. 7. Respondent No. 7 has filed the return in which preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition has been taken. It has been, inter alia, stated that disputed question of facts are involved in the present writ petition and, therefore, the same cannot be adjudicated in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Appellant was de-affiliated from Indian National Trade Union Congress on 24.3.2007. Respondent No. 7 has been granted affiliation by NITUC. In the verification of the membership of the unions, which took place in the month of July, 2007, the Appellants-union's membership was nil whereas the membership of the Respondent-Union was more than 1000. The Appellant was de-affiliated from Indian National Trade Union Congress on 24.3.2007. Respondent No. 7 has been granted affiliation by NITUC. In the verification of the membership of the unions, which took place in the month of July, 2007, the Appellants-union's membership was nil whereas the membership of the Respondent-Union was more than 1000. It has further been stated that the Appellant is affiliated with United Trade Unions Congress which has not been recognized by the Coal India Limited, since United Trade Union Congress has neither any membership in Coal India Limited nor in its subsidiary companies. It has further been averred that employer is not duty bound to deduct the union membership fee to recognize the union which is not having any membership. Simply because Trade Union is registered, a writ cannot be issued directing employer for granting check-off facility. The Appellant-Union, in fact, has become defunct. The Appellant has an alternative efficacious remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, Appellant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. 8. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 24.2.2009 dismissed the writ petition preferred by the Appellant. The learned Single Judge, however, rejected the objections raised on behalf of the Respondents with regard to territorial jurisdiction and held that this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. It was further held that since the claim of the Appellants in the writ petition is based on the ground that it is a recognized Trade Union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, therefore, the Appellant has the locus standi to maintain the writ petition. However, the learned Single Judge held that the facility of check-off system is an integral part of industrial relations system which can be borne out from the Code of Conduct which has been evolved in accordance with the decision taken by the Joint Consultative Committee in the meeting held on 2.8.1994. It was further held that Code of Conduct was evolved with the purpose to ensure that disputes, demands/grievances are settled mutually to maintain peace and tranquility. Thus, a set policy is in vogue in SECL since 1986. It was further held that scope of judicial review with regard to interference with the policy decision is extremely limited. Accordingly, it was found that no illegality was committed by the Respondents in not extending the facility of check-off system to the Appellant-Union. 9. Thus, a set policy is in vogue in SECL since 1986. It was further held that scope of judicial review with regard to interference with the policy decision is extremely limited. Accordingly, it was found that no illegality was committed by the Respondents in not extending the facility of check-off system to the Appellant-Union. 9. Shri Rohit Arya, learned senior counsel submitted that provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Trade Unions Act, 1926 do not make any distinction between the self styled recognized Trade Union and the Registered Trade Unions. It was further contended that action of Respondents in depriving the Appellants of check-off facility amounts to unfair labour practice. The Respondent-Management has no authority in law to discriminate between two Trade Unions on the ground that one Trade Union is affiliated qua the other for which there is no legal sanction. It was further contended that none of the Central Trade Unions are registered under the Trade Unions Act. Action of Respondents in depriving the Appellants of the check-off facility amounts to selective discrimination which does not pass the test of Article 14 and violates the fundamental rights of the Appellants under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. It has further been contended that check-off facility has been recognized and treated as condition of service of an employee. It is also submitted that Code of Conduct has no legal sanctity in the eyes of law. In this connection learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Management of Karnataka, State Road Transport Corporation v. KSRTC Staff and Workers' Federation and Anr.: AIR 1999 SC 1059 . 10. On the other hand Shri P.S. Nair, learned senior counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 3 while countering the submissions made on behalf of the Appellants submitted that impugned communication neither creates any right nor does it take away any right. No cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, this Court has no territorial (jurisdiction) to entertain the writ petition. In support of aforesaid proposition learned senior counsel placed reliance on decisions of Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors.: (1994) 4 SCC 711 and Eastern Coalfields Limited and Ors. v. Kalyan Banerjee,: (2008) 3 SCC 456 . In support of aforesaid proposition learned senior counsel placed reliance on decisions of Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors.: (1994) 4 SCC 711 and Eastern Coalfields Limited and Ors. v. Kalyan Banerjee,: (2008) 3 SCC 456 . It was further contended that check-off system cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is also submitted that Union has no locus to file the writ petition seeking the benefit of check-off system. In this connection reliance has been placed on a decision reported in (1994) Suppl. 3 Labour Law Journal 77. It was further submitted that from perusal of Section 1 of Payment of Wages Act it is clear that it has no application in the facts of this case. The decision of the government is a policy decision which has been taken for a period of 30 years. The union of the Appellant has no membership. The facility of check-off system is a concession and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In the absence of any statutory or legal right, no writ of mandamus can be issued. For this proposition the learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court reported in Mani Subrat Jain and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.: (1977) 1 SCC 486 and Union of India and Ors. v. Muralidhara Menon and Anr.: (2009) 9 SCC 304 . It has further been stated that 5 Central Trade Unions, to which concession has been given have membership all over the country. Unequals cannot be treated as equals. For this proposition learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court reported in Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.: (2002) 4 SCC 34 . However, learned senior counsel fairly submitted that action of Respondents in not extending the benefit of check-off system to the Appellant-Union can be examined on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has also been submitted that during the pendency of the instant writ appeal, Appellant has moved an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) in which a dispute has been raised. Since the Appellants has resorted to the alternative remedy, therefore, writ appeal cannot be entertained. It has also been submitted that during the pendency of the instant writ appeal, Appellant has moved an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) in which a dispute has been raised. Since the Appellants has resorted to the alternative remedy, therefore, writ appeal cannot be entertained. It was further submitted that since the disputed questions of fact arise for determination, therefore, the same cannot be adjudicated in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For this proposition, learned senior counsel has referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Krishan Lal and Ors. v. Adhishashi and Ors.: (1998) 9 SCC 587 and National Textile Corporation Limited and Ors. v. Haribox Swalram and Ors.: (2004) 9 SCC 786 . The scope of judicial review in the matter of policy is extremely limited. For this proposition, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Balco Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and Ors.: AIR 2002 SC 350 . It has further been contended that Trade Unions have no right to represent its members. In this connection, reference has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Chairman, State Bank of India and Ors. v. All Orissa State Bank Officers Association and Anr.: (2003) 11 SCC 607. 11. Learned Counsel for Respondents No. 4 and 5 have adopted the submissions made by learned senior counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1 to 3. It has been pointed that for the first time the Appellant-union was debarred on 20.6.2000 and, therefore, the contention that by the impugned communication dated 14.7.2007 the Appellant-union has been debarred from participating in the industrial relations system is incorrect. 12. Shri S.K. Rao, learned senior counsel for Respondent No. 7 has submitted by order dated 24.3.2007, the affiliation of the Appellant from INTUC has been suspended and facility of check-of has been extended to Respondent No. 7 in place of Appellant. Respondent No. 7 has been granted affiliation by INTUC. It has further been submitted that benefit of check-off facility is extended to unions having large membership. The provisions of Payment of Wages Act do not apply in the facts of the case as an employee in Coal Industries earns more than Rs. 6500/- per month. It has further been submitted that Appellant-union has been de-recognized and it has no membership. The provisions of Payment of Wages Act do not apply in the facts of the case as an employee in Coal Industries earns more than Rs. 6500/- per month. It has further been submitted that Appellant-union has been de-recognized and it has no membership. The Appellant has neither having the locus to file the writ petition nor this Court has the territorial jurisdiction, to entertain the writ petition. 13. We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. Under the check-off facility the employer has to deduct the subscription of the members of the union from their wages on obtaining individual authorization. While dealing with the nature of check-off facility the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 12.3.2003 passed in W.P. No. 160/2003 has held that no statutory duty is cast upon the management to extend the check-off facility. Similar view has been taken by the learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in the decision reported in Hills Plantation Workers' Union v. Anamaila Planters Association, Valparai, Coimbatore and Anr. (1994) Supp. 3 LLL 77. Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the nature of check-off facility in case of Management of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. State of Karnataka: AIR 1999 SC 1059 in which it was held that pay roll/check off facility is available to a union under the binding settlement and not by way of convention or practice. It was further held that check off facility is obviously not a facility available to workmen. It is available only to the union to get an ensured method of securing membership fee from its members on regular basis. It has also been held that check-off facility is a condition of service. Thus, in view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by Supreme Court it is apparent that employer is not under any obligation to offer check-off facility to union. Check-off facility is a concession granted to the union under an agreement or binding settlement and cannot be claimed by a union as a matter of right. 14. Appellant-union was incorporated on 15.8.1947 and was registered with Registrar, Trade Unions under the provisions of Trade Unions Act, 1926. The union was initially registered as Chhattisgarh Colliery Workers' Federation. Thereafter, the name of the Appellant-union was changed from time to time in accordance with Section 23 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. 14. Appellant-union was incorporated on 15.8.1947 and was registered with Registrar, Trade Unions under the provisions of Trade Unions Act, 1926. The union was initially registered as Chhattisgarh Colliery Workers' Federation. Thereafter, the name of the Appellant-union was changed from time to time in accordance with Section 23 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The Appellant-union claims to have mass following of about 21000 and odd workers working in the collieries situate in the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. The benefit of check-off facility was extended to the Appellant-union in 1986 as is perceptible from minutes of meeting held between the management and the representative of union dated 12/12-6-1986 (Annexure-P-3). Thereafter, revised guidelines were issued vide circular dated 20/23-6-2000. From perusal of the aforesaid guidelines which are annexed as Annexure-P-4 with the writ petition, it is apparent that five Central Trade Unions, namely, INTUC, AITUC, CITU, BMS and HMS and the Appellant-union were entitled to the benefit of check-off facility. Thus, for a period from 1986 till 2007 i.e. prior to issuance of impugned letter dated 14.7.2007 contained in Annexure-P-5, the Appellant-union was extended the facility of check-off system for almost 21 years. At this stage, it is relevant to mention here that Appellant-union was affiliated with AITUC only for a period of five years i.e. 2003-2007. In other words, even when the Appellant was not affiliated with AITUC the benefit of check off facility was extended to the Appellant-union. 15. Vide impugned letter dated 14.7.2007 (Annexure-P-5), a decision was taken by the management to permit verification of authorization in respect of forms of membership of declaration, submitted in favour of affiliates of Central Trade Unions only. Thus, the check-off facility which was extended to Appellant-union was withdrawn on the ground that it is not affiliated to five Central Trade Unions. 16. Admittedly, the Respondent No. 1/SECL is an instrumentality of the State. It is well settled in law that every action of the State and its instrumentality must conform to rule of law and must be informed by reasons. It's action has to meet the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The action of the State and its instrumentality are subject to judicial review on the touchstone of relevance, reasonableness, fair play, natural justice, equality and nondiscrimination. It's action has to meet the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The action of the State and its instrumentality are subject to judicial review on the touchstone of relevance, reasonableness, fair play, natural justice, equality and nondiscrimination. It is equally well settled in law that an unfettered discretion is a sworn enemy of the constitutional guarantee against discrimination. [See: Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. M. Chandrasekhar Reddy and Ors.: (2005) 2 SCC 481 . 17. In the backdrop of well settled position, facts of the case may be adverted to. Appellant, as stated supra, is a union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. No statutory provision was brought to our notice which requires that in order to avail the check-off facility, the union must be affiliated to the aforesaid five central trade unions. At the cost of repetition, we may once reiterate that check-off facility was extended to the Appellant-union way back in the year 1986. From 1986 till 2002 the Appellant was not affiliated to AITUC or any other central trade unions, yet benefit of check of facility was given to the Appellant. The Appellant-union thereafter for a period from 2003 to 2007 was affiliated with AITUC. Thereafter, the action of the management in withdrawing the facility of check-off system on the ground that it is not affiliated to any central trade union does not meet the test of reasonableness and fairness, especially in view of the fact that requirement of affiliation to central trade unions in order to avail check-off facility is not statutory requirement. The benefit of check-off facility for a period of 21 years was extended to Appellant-union and, therefore, its withdrawal, all of sudden on extraneous consideration, i.e. requirement of affiliation with central trade unions, which otherwise has no statutory sanction, cannot, but be held to be discriminatory and arbitrary. 18. Respondent No. 1 being an instrumentality of State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India is supposed to act in a fair, rational and reasonable manner while dealing with the trade unions and its action must be aimed at promoting industrial harmony. It's action in unilaterally withdrawing the facility of check-off system can not be approved. Respondent No. 1 cannot be permitted to show undue preference to any union on extraneous consideration. It's action in unilaterally withdrawing the facility of check-off system can not be approved. Respondent No. 1 cannot be permitted to show undue preference to any union on extraneous consideration. For the aforementioned reasons, the inevitable conclusion is that the action of the management in withdrawing the check-off facility suffers from vice of unreasonableness and arbitrariness. 19. So far as objection raised on behalf of the Respondents with regard to lack of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition is concerned, suffice it to say that Respondents had raised such an objection before the learned Single Judge which was rejected by the learned Single Judge and it was held that this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Against aforesaid finding, neither any cross-objection nor any cross-appeal has been filed. Therefore, such an objection cannot be entertained at the behest of the Respondents. Even otherwise, such an argument cannot be accepted as check-off facility is not available only at the headquarter level. The check-off facility is prevalent at various unit sub areas. Admittedly, the collieries of Respondent No. 1 are situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Chhattisgarh and, therefore, part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. For the aforementioned reasons, it cannot be said that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy. 20. So far as the contention that Code of Conduct which has been evolved is a matter of policy under which it is decided to extend the check-off facility to only 5 central trade unions, is concerned, no interference should be made in the matter of policy. It is well settled in law that if a policy is irrational, arbitrary or perverse, interference can be made by the Court in exercise of powers of judicial review. We have already held that action of Respondent-management in withdrawing check-off facility does not conform to requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and is arbitrary and discriminatory. 21. For the aforementioned reasons, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed. Consequently, the writ petition preferred by the Appellant is allowed. Order dated 14.7.2007 (Annexure-P-5) is also quashed. Respondents 1 to 5 are directed to extend the benefit of check-off facility to the Appellant-union. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.