2024:BHC-AUG:30802 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9808 OF 2021 New Panther Kamgar Sena, Forbes Housing Society, Trimurty Chowk, MIDC, Bajaj Nagar, Aurangabad – 431001, Through Its President ...Petitioner Versus

1. NRB Bearing Pvt. Ltd.

C-6, Additional MIDC Area, Jalna, Dist. Jalna – 431213, Through Its Managing Director.

2. All Marathwada Kamgar Union, At Khokadpura, Aurangabad, Currently operating from V. D. Deshpande Hall, N-7, CIDCO, Aurangabad – 431001, Through its General Secretary.

3. Panther Power Kamgar Sanghatana Mahatma Phule Nagar, Peer Bazar, Usmanpura, Aurangabad – 431001 Through its Secretary.

…Respondents Mr. T. K. Prabhakaran a/w Mr. A. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. V. Dankh, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 (through VC)

Mr. A. B. Gaikwad Patil, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.

DATE : 10^th DECEMBER, 2024 JUDGMENT :-

1. By consent of both sides, heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. This petition takes exception to the order passed below Exhibit C-42 whereby application filed by the petitioner - Trade Union to add itself as a party to the proceeding bearing application MRTU No. 1/2015 for seeking recognition filed by Respondent No. 2, came to be rejected by the Industrial Court, Jalna.

3. The petitioner claims to be a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act. It also claims to be representing the employees of respondent No. 1 Company. Such claim of membership of these employees is from year 2018. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 (Panther Power Kamgar Sanghatana) was existing in the Company at the relevant time and was representing the workmen of the company. It however became defunct and hence the petitioner is entitled to be joined itself as a party to the proceedings filed for recognition filed by the respondent No.2 (All Marathwada Kamgar Union). Therefore, an application was filed vide Exhibit C-42 to make petitioner party to the said proceedings. The said application came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner Union was not in existence at the time of the filing of the application which is concerned with the membership of the employees for the period of six months prior to filing of the same.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/Union submits that in view of the provisions of Section 12 read with Section 19 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Laws Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), it is not only for the Trade Union but also even to the employees of the undertaking to raise objection to the grant of recognition to the union. It is his submission that it is not necessary that the Trade Union must exist at the time of filing of the application and any union which gains membership of the employees even at a later point of time will have to be permitted to raise objection to the grant of recognition. It is his submission that for the purpose of recognition, the membership of the applicant Union only is not relevant but also compliance of Section 19 of the Act is mandatory and non-compliance thereof could be established by Petitioner. It is his further submission that in any case, respondent No.3 was a party to the said application and as such, there is no justification for denying the present petitioner/Union to be join as a party to the said proceeding being successor thereof. He further argued that the Respondent No. 2/Union is a union sponsored by the employer and it is not in the interest of the employees. He also submitted that if recognition is granted to Respondent No. 2, Petitioner would not be able to seek de-recognition for a period of at least one year. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court Vegetable Vitamin Foods Employees Union Versus Sarva Shramik Sangh, 2006(9)CPSC781, to seeks directions similar to the one issued therein.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/Union supported the imp