Recognised unions exclusively represent collective disputes under the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, prohibiting unrecognised unions from participation.

JUDGMENTS :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. Both the writ petitions challenge the same Judgment and Order and, therefore, are being decided by this common Judgment. For the sake of convenience, Writ Petition No.1457 of 2015 is treated as lead petition, and the facts of the said petition are taken as the basis for narration.

2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1457 of 2025-Union, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27 January 2015 passed by the Industrial Court, has instituted the present writ petition, calling in question the legality and propriety of the said order, whereby an unrecognised Union has been permitted to prosecute a dispute of a collective nature.

3. Relevant facts narrated by the petitioner are as under. The petitioner is the BEST Workers Union. It is a trade union duly registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The petitioner Union is also recognised and registered as the Representative and Approved Union for the Transport Industry and the Common Administration Departments of the BEST Undertaking, which is respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 is the Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking. Respondent No. 2 is a trade union known as BEST Jagrut Kamgar Sanghatana. The petitioner Union states that it is the recognised Representative and Approved Union under the provisions of the Mahahrashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946, for the Transport Industry and Common Administration Departments of respondent No.1. By virtue of such recognition, the petitioner Union is the sole bargaining agent entitled to represent employees in all industrial matters of a general nature. Section 27A of the MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT , 1946 (“MIR Act”) provides that, save as provided under Sections 32 , 33 and 33A, no employee shall be permitted to appear or act in any proceedings under the Act, except through the representative of employees. Section 30 of the MIR Act further provides that, subject to Section 33A, a Representative Union shall have first preference to appear or act as the representative of employees in an industry within a local area.

4. The petitioner Union came to know that respondent No.2 had filed Complaint (ULP) No.291 of 2015 before the Labour Court at Mumbai against respondent No.1. The complaint challenges circular dated 17 December 2014 issued by respondent No.1 and contends that absorption of 92 unskilled employees in various depots would result in discontinuance of temporary and daily-rated employees. Respondent No.2 also sought interim reliefs on the same basis. The dispute raised in the said complaint concerns a large section of employees and relates to matters of a general nature. Such a dispute can be raised only by the recognized Representative Union. Respondent No. 2, therefore, had no locus to file the said complaint. Upon becoming aware of the said complaint, the petitioner Union filed Application U-A-2 seeking to be impleaded as a co-complainant. Respondent No.2 filed reply to the said application. Thereafter, the petitioner Union filed Application U-A-3, praying that Application U-A-2 be decided prior to the interim application filed by respondent No. 2. By an order dated 30 December 2014, the Labour Court impleaded the petitioner Union as a necessary party, and respondent No.2 amended the complaint accordingly by adding the petitioner as a co-complainant. In the meantime, respondent No.1 filed Application Exhibit C-4 seeking a decision on the preliminary issues of maintainability, locus, a