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