(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2993 OF 2011 M/s. Everest Kanto Cylinder, Plot No. 22, Chikalthana IA, Dist. : Aurangabad, through the General Manager. .. Petitioner. versus 1. All Marathwada Kamgar Union, AITUC Office, Kamgar Housing Society, Kokadpura, Aurangabad, through the General Secretary. 2. Bharateeya Kamgar Sena, C/o. Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd., Plot No. : E-22, Chikalthana IA, Aurangabad. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. T.K. Prabhakaran, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.A. More, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Mr. S.G. Barde, Advocate, for respondent no.2. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 18TH APRIL 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. T.K. Prabhakaran, for the petitioner; Adv. Mr. A.A. More, for respondent no.1, and Adv. Mr. S.G. Barde, for respondent no.2. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22-3-2011, passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Aurangabad, in Complaint (ULP) No. 167/2010, thereby holding that the complainant / Union, has locus standi to file the complaint and the General Secretary is duly authorized to file the complaint. By the impugned order, the Industrial Court has recorded findings on preliminary issues in the affirmative. 3. After perusal of the impugned order, I am satisfied that the question as to validity of election of a trade union, validity of election of a particular person as General Secretary or then validity of enrollment of workman as its member by trade union, may not be open before Industrial Court under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (For short, "1971 Act"). (3) However, Industrial Court has to find out whether complaint, as filed, was presented by competent / authorized person in the light of provision contained in constitution of the Union and whether persons in relation to whom relief is being claimed are its members and employees of the petitioner. 4. The Industrial Court has made reference to certain judgments and delivered its order on preliminary issue. However, the Trade Unions have not led any evidence on the questions raised. The petitioner / employer, therefore, also did not lead any evidence. Basically, it is for the person raising objection to substantiate the same. In this view of the matter, I find it appropriate to permit the Industrial Court to decide these issues along with other issues on merits of ULP Complaint after parties lead evidence in relation to merits of ULP Complaint and also on these issues. 5. With these directions and observations, present petition is disposed of. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2993