1 WP 5830.2010 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5830 OF 2010 Marathwada Sarva Udyog Kamgar Sanghatana, through its General Secretary - Rajendra Vihire Age : 64 Yrs.,Occ. Social Work, R/o : Trade Union Centre, Maharashtra Housing Society, Near Water Tank, Barshi Road, Latur, Tq. & Dist. : Latur. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The Chief Conservator of Forest Near SSC Board, Railway Station Road, Osmanpura, Aurangabad. 2. Sub Divisional Forest Officer Sub Divisional Forest Office, Beed. 3. The Range Forest Officer Parli- Vaijnath, Dist. Beed. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. V.P.Golewar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. K.B.Choudhari, Addl. Govt. Pleader for State. 2 WP 5830.2010 - [ J ] CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 06/09/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Govt. Pleader for the State. 3. The petitioner-Union had filed Complaint ULP No. 253 of 2003 complaining unfair labour practice as against the respondents as described in Item Nos. 5,6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 [ For short, ‘ M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act ’ ]. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint being unrecognized Union and the complaint was dismissed as not maintainable. The said order is assailed in the present Writ Petition. 4. Mr. Golewar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an unregistered Union can file complaint in relation to unfair labour practice other than those specified in Item Nos. 2 and 6 of 3 WP 5830.2010 - [ J ] Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act in respect of an industry governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Warden & Co. (India) Ltd., Bombay V/s Akhil Maharashtra Kamgar Union, Thane reported in 2001 ( 2 ) Mh.L.J. - 485. According to the learned counsel, the present complaint was filed in respect of Item Nos. 5,6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act . The learned counsel contends that the petitioners have waived and abandoned their grievance in respect of unfair labour practice as described in Item No. 6 and a pursis to that effect has been filed in this Court. The learned counsel contends that there was no impediment for the Industrial Court to entertain the complaint even if it is assumed that the petitioner is unregistered Union vis-a-vis the present respondents. 5. Mr. K.B.Choudhari, the learned Additional Govt. Pleader submits that the said complaint was not maintainable and the same has been rightly held by the Industrial Court. According to the learned Additional Govt. Pleader, the Industrial Court has taken into consideration all the aspects of the matter and dealt with the same. 6. The petitioner has filed a pursis giving up their claim in respect of unfair labour practice as contemplated under Item No. 6 of 4 WP 5830.2010 - [ J ] Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. In light of that, the only question that would remain is whether an unrecognized Union would be in a position to maintain the complaint in respect of unfair labour practice with regard to Item Nos. 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. The said issue is now no longer res-integra in view of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Warden & Co. (India) Ltd. Bombay referred supra. 7. In view of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Warden & Co. (India) Ltd. Bombay referred supra, it will have to be held that the petitioner is entitled to maintain and prosecute the complaint in respect of Item Nos. 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. 8. In light of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The parties are relegated before the Industrial Court, who shall decide the said Complaint afresh to the extent of Item Nos. 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. 9. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 5830.2010 - [ J ] 5 WP 5830.2010 - [ J ]