JUDGMENT - H.H. KANTHARIA, J.:---The petitioner-union filed a complaint of unfair labour practice, being Complaint (ULP) No. 195 of 1979, in the Industrial Court at Bombay alleging that the first respondent-company had indulged in unfair labour practice covered under Item Nos. 6 and 9 of Schedule IV and 4(a) and 5 of Schedule II of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MRTU PULP Act'). In the Industrial Court, the petitioner-union examined four workmen and the first respondent-company examined its Managing partner by name J.C. Katharani. On appreciation of the evidence adduced before him, the learned Member of the Industrial Court (second respondent) came to the conclusion that the petitioner-union failed to prove that the first respondent-company had indulged in unfair labour practice covered under Item 9 of Schedule IV and 4(a) and 5 of Schedule II of the MRTU PULP Act. So long as item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act is concerned, he was of the opinion that admittedly the petitioner-union was not a recognised union under the MRTU PULP Act and, therefore, a complaint by it under item 6 of Schedule IV cannot be filed as barred by the provisions of section 21 of the said Act. He, therefore, did not enter into the merits of the matter so far as Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU A PULP- Act is concerned and concluded that it would not be worthwhile to discuss the evidence in detail as the complaint itself was misconceived. He, accordingly, by his judgment and order dated September 11, 1984 dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner-union.

2. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-union invoked the supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by filing the present writ petition.

3. At the hearing, Mrs. Mhatre appearing on behalf of the petitioner-union urged that in view of a judgment of this Court in case of (Petroleum Employees' Union and others v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and anr.)1, reported in 1983 Maharashtra Law Journal 618, the finding of the learned Member of the Industrial Court that a complaint by an unrecognised union was not maintainable under the provisions of section 21 of the MRTU PULP Act is patently incorrect and that being so, the impugned order passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court to that extent be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Industrial Court for allowing the parties to adduce fresh evidence and dispose of the unfair labour practice complaint of the petitioner-union covered by Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act on merits. Controverting her arguments, Mr. Bukhari, appearing on behalf of the first respondent-company, submitted that at the time of hearing of admission of this writ petition on February 18,1985 this Court (Coram: Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.) had ruled that the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in Balmer Lawrie Workers Union v. Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd, dated December 21, 1984 covered the question of validity of section 21 of the MRTU PULP Act and no intervention was called for on other points and accordingly the writ petition was rejected but by a subsequent order the same learned Judge of this Court had admitted this writ petition on March 4,1985 and had limited the Rule to the question whether an unrecognised union had a right to represent workmen under section 21 of the MRTU PULP Act only and, therefore, the question of remanding the matter back to the Industrial Court does not arise even if I am of the view that an unrecognised union can represent workmen under section 21 of the said Act.

4. Now, section 21 of the MRTU PULP Act reads as under:

"21. Right to appear or act in proceedings relating to certain unfair labour practices.---(l) No employee in an undertaking to which the provisions of the Central Act for the time being apply, shall be allowed to appear or act or allo