1 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 1070 OF 2003 IN WRIT PETITOIN NO.1143 OF 1997 General Labour Union(Red Flag) ... Appellant. (Org.Resp.no.1) Vs. 1.M/s.I.T.C.Ltd & another. ... Respondents. --- Ms.Shobana Gopal, for Appellant. Mr.P.K.Rele, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Vinod Tayade i/b. Piyush Shah, for the Respondent no.1. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & V.R.KINGAONKAR,JJ. DATED: 25th MARCH, 2010 2 P.C.: 1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 15.3.2001 in Writ Petition no.1143 of 1997. That Writ petition was filed by the present respondent no.1 challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 11.4.1997 rejecting the application filed by the Respondent. A Complaint ULP no.584 of 1997 was filed by the appellant before the Industrial Court. In the complaint, an application was made on behalf of the Respondent no.1 that the complaint is not maintainable because it is filed by an unrecognised union when there is a recognised union in the establishment. The Industrial Court rejected that application by order dated 11.4.1997 erroneously noting that it is not the case of the respondent no.1 that there is any recognised union in the establishment. The learned Single Judge has allowed the petition. By his elaborate order, he has held that the order of the Industrial Court suffers from non application of mind because it was the consistent 3 stand of the respondent no.1-employer that there is a recognised union already in existence in the establishment and therefore, the Complaint made by the unrecognised union is not maintainable. The learned Single Judge has further held that the complaint filed by appellant for the same relief was dismissed by the Industrial Court and even the Writ Petition filed against that order in this Court had also been dismissed. Considering the entire material on record, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition and held that the complaint itself is not maintainable. 2. In the present appeal, the learned Counsel appearing for appellant submitted that the rule that an unrecognized union cannot file complaint when there is a recognized union in existence, does not apply to the complaint which is filed under Clause 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. Therefore, we asked the learned Counsel as to whether this point is raised earlier. 4 Perusal of the record shows that it was not raised before the Industrial Court and it was also not argued before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, in our opinion, the contention cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time before this Court. We do not see any reason to interfere with the well considered order of the learned Single Judge. Appeal is therefore, rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) ...