( 1 ) RULE. Mr. V. B. Patel, and Mr. D. S. Vasavada, learned counsel, waive service of rule on behalf of the respondents.

( 2 ) ON the request of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

( 3 ) THIS Special Civil Application has been filed by one Raghuvir Prasad Mali representing himself as the Secretary of Maha Gujarat Mill Mazdoor Union, ahmedabad against the General Manager, The Arvind Mills Ltd. and the Secretary, textile Labour Association, Bhadra, Ahmedabad. The petitioner seeks the issue of a writ for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal for State of Gujarat at Ahmedabad on 15-4-1995 recording amicable settlement as per the Memorandum of settlement and the Award has been passed in terms of the memorandum of settlement, which is duly signed by and on behalf of the Textile labour Association and The Arvind Mills Ltd.

( 4 ) ON 2-2-1995 the respondent-Company had given a notice under Sec. 42 (1) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as "the B. I. R. Act") with regard to changes. Conciliation proceedings failed on 23-3-95, against which Reference was made on 30-3-1995. On 15-4-1995 the Industrial Court recorded the settlement. This settlement recorded by the Industrial Court in terms of the Memorandum of settlement and the Award passed accordingly on 15-4-1995 in Reference (IC) No. 67 of 1995 by the Industrial Court at Ahmedabad have been challenged by the Maha Gujarat Mill Mazdoor Union through the Secretary, raghuvir Prasad Mali.

( 5 ) MR. Patel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 at the very threshold has challenged the locus standi of the present petitioner-Union to file and maintain this Special Civil Application. It may be stated at the very outset that it is common case of the parties that the petitioner-Union is not the representative of the employees and the only recognised representative Union is the respondent No. 2, i. e. , The textile Labour Association. On this factual premises the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Patel is that the petitioner-Union has no right to challenge the settlement recorded by the Industrial Court and it is not open for the petitioner-Union to challenge the impugned Award passed in terms of the recorded settlement as per the Memorandum.

( 6 ) MR. Shaikh referred to Sec. 42 (1) of the B. I. R. Act and has submitted that the settlement has been recorded without following the provisions of Sec. 42 and he invited my attention to the language of Sec. 42 wherein the words "representative of employees" have been used. Sec. 42 (1) of the B. I. R. Act is reproduced as under : "42 (1 ). Any employer intending to effect any change in respect of an industrial matter specified in Schedule II shall give notice of such intention in the prescribed form to the representative of employees. He shall send a copy of such notice to the Chief conciliator, the Conciliator for the industry concerned for the local area, the registrar, the Labour Officer and such other person as may be prescribed. He shall also affix a copy of such notice at a conspicuous place on the premises where the employees affected by the change are employed for work and at such other place as may be directed by the Chief Conciliator in any particular case". The agrument raised by Mr. Shaikh with reference to Sec. 42 is that the respondent- company while intending to effect change in respect of an industrial matter specified in Schedule II has to give notice of such intention in the prescribed form to the representative of the employees and his further contention is that no such notice was given to the petitioner-Union. The term "representative of employees" has been defined in Sec. 3 (32) of the B. I. R. Act. The same is reproduced as under : "3 (32) representative of employees means a representative of employees entitled to appear or act as such under Sec. 30" accordingly to understand the correct import of the words "representat