JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. Appellants contend that the view which was first expressed by this Court in General Labour Union (Red Flag), Bombay v. Ahmedabad Mfg. And Calico Printing Co. Ltd. and Ors. (1995 Supp (1) SCC 175), subsequently echoed in many cases including Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani Steels Ltd. and Anr. (2001 (2) SCC 381) and finally in CIPLA Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and Ors. (2001 (3) SCC 101) is legally unsound and needs a fresh look.

3. It was held in first of the three cases that the workmen have to establish that they are workmen of the respondent-company before they can file any complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (in short the Maharashtra Act ). Similar was the view expressed in Vividh Kamgar s case (supra) and CIPLA Ltd. s case (supra).

4. According to the appellants a fresh look is necessary in the matter, as various relevant provisions were not kept in view when the above decisions were rendered.

5. Ms. Indira Jaisingh, made leading submissions followed by Shri V.A. Mohta, Mr. Chander Udai Singh, Sr. Advocates and others on behalf of the appellants, w