S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. Rule. Respondent No.1 waives service. Service on respondent No.2 is not necessary. Even the intervenors waive service and agree that the writ petition be taken up for hearing forthwith. With the consent of the learned advocates, this writ petition is heard finally and disposed off by this judgment and order.

2. The petitioners have challenged, by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 8th August 2011 passed by Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai in complaint (ULP NO.114 of 2011). By this order, the learned Member rejected the application dated 19th July 2011 (Exhibit C-13) raising a preliminary objection to its territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.

3. The 1st respondent-Union is the original complainant.

4. The complaint alleges unfair labour practices under Item 5 of Schedule II and Item 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short MRTU and PULP Act).

5. The 1st respondent-original complainant states that it is a trade union functioning in the establishment of the petitioner No.1, which is the origin