JUDGMENT

BHARUCHA, J.:—Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The question for consideration in this appeal is : does a representative union under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (BIR Act) have the exclusive right to represent the employees of the concerned industry in complaints relating to unfair labour practices under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions And Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) other than those specified in items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV thereof ?

4. The question arises in an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court at Bombay dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant.

5. The first respondent is a public limited company with an industrial establishment at Bombay. It is covered by the provisions of the B.I.R. Act. The second respondent is a trade union recognised as the representative union for the concerned industry under the provisions of the BIR Act. The appellant is a trade union registered under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926.

6. The first respondent filed a complaint before the Industrial Court alleging the unfair labour practices mentioned in items 5 and 6 of Schedule III of the MRTU & PULP Act. Item 5 of Schedule III states that it is an unfair labour practice on the part of a trade union "to stage, encourage or instigate such forms of coercive actions as wilful go slow squatting on the work premises after working hours or gherao of any of the members of the managerial or other staff. Item 6 of Schedule III states that it is an unfair labour practice on the part of a trade union "to stage demonstration at the residences of the employers or the managerial staff members." The Industrial Court made an ad-interim order re- straining the commission of the unfair labour practices. The ad-interim order was made absolute after the second respondent had been heard. It is the appellants case that the first respondent told the Industrial Court that it had no objection to such order being passed, and that this was done because the members of the first respondents were deserting it in favour of the appellant. The appellant moved an application seeking impleadment in the complaint proceedings on the ground that employees of the first respondent had sought its membership and that the complaint had been filed by the first respondent in collusion with the second respondent. The application was opposed by the first and second respondents. The Industrial Court rejected the application. The appellant filed a writ petition impugning the Industrial Courts order. The High Court held that the only ground for moving the impleadment application was that several employees of the first respondent had approached the appellant with the intention of becoming its members and that there was no material to support this ground. Upon consideration of the provisions of the BIR and the MRTU & PULP Acts, the High Court concluded that the second respondents, as the representative union, had the sole privilege of representing employees in the industry of the respondent. The writ petition was accordingly, dismissed.

7. It is advantageous to consider at the outset the relevant provisions of the B.I.R. and the MRTU & PULP Acts.

8. The BIR Act, which is the earlier statute, was enacted because "it was expedient to provide for the regulation of the relations of employers and employees in certain matters to consolidate and amend the law relating to the settlement of industrial disputes and to provide for certain other purposes." Section 3(2) defines "approved union" to be a union on the approved list. Section 3(14) states, inter alia, that an employer includes an association or a group of employers. Section 3(28) defines "primary union" to mean a union registered as a primary union under the Act. Section 3(29) defines "qualified union" to mean a union registered as a qualified union under the Act. Section 3(30) defines "registered union" to mean a union