WP/8080/2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8908 OF 2010 Sarva Shramik Sangh ... Petitioner V/s. Indian Smelting & Refining Co. Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents Ms.N.D. Buch with Shailesh More for Petitioner Mr.M.H. Doshi for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr.R.D. Bhatt for Resp. No.5 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 16, 2010 P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. 2. The Petition has been filed against the order passed by the Industrial Court on 19.10.2010 directing the petitioner union to implead the Maharashtra Rajya Rashtriya Kamgar Sangh as party respondent to the complaint . 3. Undisputedly, the petitioner is a recognised union. It has filed a complaint alleging that the respondent company has engaged in or indulged in unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. Various reasons have been stated in support of this contention. An application was filed by the Maharashtra Rajya Rashtriya Kamgar Sangh, Mumbai for being WP/8080/2010 : 2 : impleaded as a party on the ground that it was representing the workers employed with the Company for 13 years. 4. The Industrial Court has allowed the application. The Court has also noted that the respondent company has no objection to the aforesaid union being joined as a party respondent. On a perusal of the order of the Industrial Court in my opinion the Industrial Court has hopelessly erred in allowing the application by the union. 5. It has lost sight of the fact that the complaint has been filed under Item 6 of Schedule IV besides other Items. It is now well settled in the case of Shramik Uttarsh Sabha vs. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. & Ors., 1995 II CLR 607 which has been followed in several other judgments that when a recognised union exists in a Company it is only that union which can be heard when complaint is filed under Item 6 of Schedule II, and not any other union. Undoubtedly, where there is no recognised union, individual workers can file a complaint under Item 6. In fact, the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act are clear in that regard that a complaint under Items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV can be filed by a recognised union where such a union exists in the establishment. An unrecognised union does not have a right of audience before the Court when a recognised union is functioning in an estbalishment. Therefore, the impugned order must be set aside. 6. Mr.Bhatt, appearing for the aforesaid union, has submitted that this union should be heard as no efforts have been made by the recognised union for a long time to have the settlements arrived at by the employer and individual workers, implemented. He also submits that the union would in any case be a proper party. WP/8080/2010 : 3 : 7. Whether an unrecognised union would be a proper party when a recognised union exists in a concern has already been considered in Shramik Uttarsh Sabha vs. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. & Ors. (supra), and other subsequent judgments. When the MRTU & PULP Act has been enacted to prevent unfair labour practices by the employer or by the workers, a union cannot claim to be a proper party when the complaint filed alleges unfair labour practices on the part of the employer. Unfortunately the Industrial Court has not paid heed to those judgments. 8. The impugned order is set aside. Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. Rule made absolute.