GAJENDRA GADKAR, J.

(1) THE appellant, the Fine Knitting Co. Ltd., as incorporated in 1908 and its principal activity then was to manufacture hosiery. In 1924, when the appellant shifted its factory from Barejadi to Ahmedabad, it installed spinning machinery with 9000 spindles with a view to ensure suitable and even supply of yarn for its hosiery manufacture. On May 30, 1939, the Government of Bombay issued a notification under the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act, 1938 (No. XXV of 1938), whereby hosiery concerns were included in the definition of Cotton Textile Industry. Subsequently on July 17, 1945, another notification was issued as a result of which the hosiery manufacture was excluded from the Cotton Textile Industry and it was covered by a separate notification issued under the said Act. This latter notification which was made applicable to the Hosiery Industry specified that the said notification inter alia, to all concerns using power and employing twenty or more persons which are engaged, in the manufacture of hosiery or other knitted articles made of cotton and all processes incidental or supplementary thereto. After this notification was issued, the appellant ceased to be covered by the extended and inclusive definition of the Cotton Textile Industry and was recognised as a Hosiery concern being engaged in the manufacture of hosiery. Later, in 1946, the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (No. XI of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act.), was applied to the industries to which the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act had been applied, as a result of s.2(3) of the former Act. In consequence, for the purposes of the Act, the appellant concern was recognised as an undertaking of the Hosiery Industry under s.11 This was the result of notification No. 10 of 19.48, issued by the .Registrar under the Act. This position was recognised by the Industrial Tribunal in indus- trial adjudications concerning disputes between the appellant and its workmen.

(2) EVEN so, respondent No. 3, the Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad, sought to reopen the issue by applying by to the Registrar on October 16, 1953, that the appellants factory should be recognised as an undertaking both in the Cotton Textile Industry and the Hosiery Industry. The Registrar who is the second respondent in the present appeal held an enquiry and ultimately came to the conclusion that there was no justification for splitting up the concern into two units and recognising them as suggested by the third respondent. The third respondent did not prefer an appeal against the said decision of the second respondent; but respondent No. 4 who are the five elected representatives of the employees of the appellant sought to challenge the said decision of the second respondent by preferring an appeal to the Industrial Court, respondent No. 1. The appellant contended that respondent) No. 4 were not entitled to prefer an appeal because they were not parties to the proceedings in the original application before the second respondent. This preliminary objection was upheld and the appeal preferred by .respondent No. 4 was dismissed. The result was that the order passed by the Registrar rejecting the application made by respondent No. 3 concluded the dispute.

(3) EVEN while the said appeal was pending before the first respondent, respondents Nos. 3 and 4 initiated the present proceedings by means of two applications made before the second respondent in which the same relief was claimed that the appellant concern should be recognised as an undertaking both in the Cotton Textile Industry and in the Hosiery Industry. The second respondent, however. rejected these applications on the ground that since he gave his earlier decision, there had been no change of circumstances and so there was no justification for reconsidering the matter over again. The third and the fourth respondents then went in appeal before the first respondent and their appeals were al