JUDGMENT - Madon D.P. J.-As an identical question of interpretation of section 25 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (Bombay Act No. XI of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”), arises for determination in both these Writ Petitions, it will be convenient to dispose of them by a common judgment. 2. The facts which have given rise to these two petitions are that the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as “the BEST”) is an undertaking established by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay for the purpose of providing and operating public passenger bus transport service and for supplying electricity to consumers in the City of Bombay. The said Act applies to the industries mentioned in sub-section (3) of section 2 of the said Act. Under sub-section (4) of sec­ tion 2 of the said Act, the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette apply all or any of the provisions of the said Act to all or any other industries whether generally or in any local area as may be specified in such notification. By Government Notification No. 367/46 dated December 4, 1946, No. 298 /48-I dated April 7, 1954 and No. BIR 1158-1 dated April 16, 1958, the provisions of the said Act have been applied to both the aforesaid services rendered by the BEST, and these two services have been thus reorganised as two separate industries for the purposes of the said Act. Prior to August 30, 1972, the BEST Workers' Union was the representative and approved Union in respect of both the electric supply and transport industries carried on by the BEST. On August 30, 1972, the BEST Workers' Union ceased to be the representative and approved union in the electric supply industry of the BEST and another registered trade union known as the Bombay Electric Workers' Union became the representative and approved union for the said industry. Some of the employees of the BEST belong to some other trade unions registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, namely, the BEST Kamgar Sena, the BEST Employees' Union and the BEST Staff Forum. 3. On October 8, 1970, the BEST made an order prescribing conditions for grant of permissions to the trade unions other than the representative union to function in the said Undertaking. The said conditions are as follows: “1. 3. On October 8, 1970, the BEST made an order prescribing conditions for grant of permissions to the trade unions other than the representative union to function in the said Undertaking. The said conditions are as follows: “1. The Trade Union must be registered Union under the Trade Unions Act, 1936, and must produce the necessary Registration Certificate to the Undertaking. 2. The Trade Union must have a minimum membership of not less-than 5% of the total number of employees in the Under taking. 3. The membership must be duly certified by the Registrar of Trade Unions. 4. The Union will furnish the Undertaking with a list of the persons authorised by it to collect Union's subscription on the Undertaking's premises. 5. The number of persons allowed to collect Union subscription on the premises of the Undertaking will not exceed the number permitted by the General Manager from time to time. 6. The Management will provide a table and chairs to enable the authorised representatives of the Union to collect subscription on the days of payment. All subscriptions will be collected at this table and nowhere else. 7. This facility for collection of Union subscription will be exercised in an orderly manner without hindering the work of the Undertaking's employees. Any authorised representatives who incite or participate in any form of commotion or disorderly behaviour will be disqualified forthwith from being a representative for this purpose. 8. Not more than 10 representatives of the Union will be granted weekly offs on Sundays. 9. Copies of Line Notices will be furnished to the Union. 10. The permission so granted to the Trade Unions to function in the Undertaking will be withdrawn at any time at the discretion of the General Manager without assigning any reasons. Note : The General Manager, in his absolute discretion, may vary, delete or add to any of the conditions stated above.” 4. 10. The permission so granted to the Trade Unions to function in the Undertaking will be withdrawn at any time at the discretion of the General Manager without assigning any reasons. Note : The General Manager, in his absolute discretion, may vary, delete or add to any of the conditions stated above.” 4. As a result of the above order all trade unions who satisfied the above conditions were permitted by the BEST to collect union subscription from their members on the premises of the said Undertaking: After the Bombay Electric Workers' Union became the representative and approved union in place of the BEST Workers' Union, it objected to the facility granted to the BEST Workers' Union to collect membership subscription from its members on the premises of the BEST where salaries were disbursed to the employees engaged in the electric supply industry. Thereafter, the Bombay Electric Workers' Union filed an application, being Application No. 338 of 1974 under section 79 read with section 78 of the said Act, against the BEST contending that the BEST had no right to grant permission to other unions which were not approved to collect union subscription of their members within the premises of the BEST and praying for a declaration that it had the exclusive right to collect membership subscription on the said premises. The said application was dismissed by the Fifth Labour Court, Bombay. Against the said order of the Labour Court, the Bombay Electric Workers' Union filed an appeal, being Appeal (IC) No. 70 of 1974, to the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay. The said appeal was allowed by the then President of the Industrial Court Mr. M. G. Chitale by his order dated October 11, 1975, and the BEST Workers' Union was directed not to collect subscription from its members on the premises of the BEST where wages for the employees of the Electric Energy Supply Department of the BEST were paid. It is against this order of the Industrial Court that Miscellaneous Petition No. 1716 of 1975 has been filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. The respondents to that petition are the Bombay Electric Workers' Union and the then President of the Industrial Court Mr. M. G. Chitale. It may be mentioned that none of the other Unions mentioned above were made parties to the said application filed by the Bombay Electric Workers' Union. The respondents to that petition are the Bombay Electric Workers' Union and the then President of the Industrial Court Mr. M. G. Chitale. It may be mentioned that none of the other Unions mentioned above were made parties to the said application filed by the Bombay Electric Workers' Union. The said Writ Petition was summarily dismissed. An appeal filed against the said order of dismissal, being Appeal No. 25 of 1976, was allowed by consent and the said petition was admitted and ordered to be heard on the merits. 5. On March 8, 1978, the BEST Workers' Union gave a notice to the BEST under section 42(4) of the said Act requesting that the BEST should forthwith stop all unions other than the BEST Workers' Union from collect­ing subscription from their members on the premises of the BEST where salaries of employees in the transport industry were being paid. As this request was not acceded to, the BEST Workers' Union filed an application in the Labour Court, Bombay, being Application No. 248 of 1976, fora declaration that it had the sole and exclusive right to collect subscription on the premises of the transport division of the BEST and for a direction to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay to stop all other unions from collecting their members' subscription on the premises of the transport divi­sion. The Third Labour Court, Bombay, held that as an approved union the BEST Workers' Union until such time as it remained on the approved list had the exclusive right to collect subscription from its members on the premises of the BEST where wages were being paid to the transport workers and that the BEST was not entitled to and should not permit the non-approv­ed unions to collect their membership subscription on the said premises. Against the said order, the BEST preferred an appeal to the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay, being Appeal (IC) No. 117 of 1977. Appeals were also preferred against the said order by the BEST Employees' Union being Appeal (IC) No. 131 of 1977, and by the BEST Kamgar Sena and the BEST Staff Forum, being Appeal (IC) No. 133 of 1955, all three of them having been impleaded as parties to the said application in the Labour Court. All the said appeals were heard together by the-then President of the Industrial Court Mr. All the said appeals were heard together by the-then President of the Industrial Court Mr. P. S. Malvankar who by a common judgment and order dated March 27/1978, held that the right to collect subscription on the employer's premises was not an exclusive right of an approved union and the said right also could be conferred by the employers on any other unions of its choice. Against this order and- judgment of Mr. Malvankar, Miscellaneous Petition No. 1422 of 1978 has been filed by the BEST Workers' Union, the respondents to this Writ Petition being the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, the BEST Kamgar Sena, the BEST Employees' Union, the BEST Staff Forum and Mr. Malvankar. 6. The question which falls for determination in these two Writ Peti­tions is whether section 25 of the said Act confers an exclusive right upon an approved union in respect of matters set out in the said section or whether it confers a statutory right in respect of those matters upon an approved union but does not debar or prohibit the employer from permitting other unions to exercise the said rights or any of them. Section 25 of the said Act provides as follows; “25. Section 25 of the said Act provides as follows; “25. Rights of Officers of approved unions.-Such officers, members of the office staff and members of an approved union as may be authorised by or under rules made in this behalf by the State Government shall, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, have a right, and shall be permitted by the employer concerned- (a) to collect sums payable by members to the union on the pre­ mises where wages are paid to them; (b) to put up or cause to be put up a notice board on the premises of the undertakings in which its members are employed and affix or cause to be affixed notices thereof; (c) for the purpose of the prevention or settlement of an indus trial dispute- (i) to hold discussions on the premises of the undertaking with the employees concerned who are the members of the union; (ii) to meet and discuss with an employer or any person appoint­ed by him for the purpose the grievances of its members employed in his undertaking; (iii) to inspect, if necessary, in any undertaking any place where any member of the union is employed.” It is pertinent to note that the said section 25 states that such officers, members of the office staff and the members of an approved union as may be authorised by the rules shall “have a right” and does not state that they “alone shall have a right” or that they shall “have the exclusive right”. It is the conten­tion of Mr. Shrikrishna, learned counsel for the BEST Workers' Union, that the exclusive nature of the right, though not expressly provided for in sec­tion 25, flows by implication from the said section, the submission of Mr. Shrikrishna being that if the approved union had these rights, the other unions, by necessary implication, did not possess such right. Shrikrishna, learned counsel for the BEST Workers' Union, that the exclusive nature of the right, though not expressly provided for in sec­tion 25, flows by implication from the said section, the submission of Mr. Shrikrishna being that if the approved union had these rights, the other unions, by necessary implication, did not possess such right. The contentions of the other trade unions and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay is that the right with respect to the matters specified for in the said section is statutorily conferred upon the -approved union and the employer is bound; to permit the authorised officers, members of the office staff and members of the approved union to exercise such rights, but this, however, does not take away the employer's right voluntarily to permit other trade unions who are not approved unions from exercising these rights. 7. In my opinion, if the contention of Mr. Shrikrishna were to prevail, it would result in great confusion in the working of the said Act. The said Act does not provide only for approved unions. Chapter III of the said Act deals with registration of unions and Chapter IV with approved unions. Under section 12, it is the duty of the Registrar to maintain-(a) registers of unions registered by him under provisions of the said Act, and (b) a list of approved unions. A union, depending upon the conditions which it fulfils can be registered as a representative union for an industry in a local area or as a qualified union for an industry in a local area or as a primary union for an industry in a local area, The conditions to be fulfilled before an applica­tion for such registration can be made are prescribed by section 13 of the Act. Under the first proviso to section 14, there cannot be more than one registered union in respect of the same industry in any local areas. As the long title of and the Preamble to the said Act show, the said Act is primarily intended to regulate the relations of employers and employees and to consoli­date and amend the law relating to the settlement of industrial disputes. Under section 42 any employer desiring to effect any change in respect of an industrial matter specified in Schedule II is to give notice of such intention to “the representative of employees”. Under section 42 any employer desiring to effect any change in respect of an industrial matter specified in Schedule II is to give notice of such intention to “the representative of employees”. Similarly, any employee desiring a change in respect of an industrial matter not specified in Schedules I and III has to give a notice in the prescribed form to the employer through “the representative of employees”. Any employee or a representative union desiring a change in respect of the matters set out in section 42(4) has a right to make an application to the Labour Court and in respect of certain matters to the Industrial Court. Under the proviso to the said sub-section (4), no such application can, however, lie unless the employee or a representative union has in the prescribed manner approached the employer with a request for the change and no agreement has been arrived at in respect of the change within the prescribed period. Chapter V deals with representatives of em­ployers and employees and appearance on their behalf. So far as employees are concerned, under section 27A, except in the cases provided for in that section no-employee can appear or act in any proceeding under the Act except through “the representative of employees”. Clause (32) of section 3 defines the -expression “representative of employees” as meaning “a representative of employees entitled to appear or act as such under section 30”. Section 30 of the said Act is as follows.: “30. Representative of employees. Clause (32) of section 3 defines the -expression “representative of employees” as meaning “a representative of employees entitled to appear or act as such under section 30”. Section 30 of the said Act is as follows.: “30. Representative of employees. Subject to the provisions of section 33A, the following shall be entitled to appear or act in the order of preference specified as the representative of employees in an industry in any local area- (i) a Representative Union for such industry; (ii) a Qualified or Primary Union of which the majority of employees directly affected by the change concerned are members; (iii) any Qualified or Primary Union in respect of such industry authorised in the prescribed manner in that behalf by the employees concerned; (iv) the Labour Officer if authorised by the employees concerned; (v) the persons elected by the employees in accordance with the provisions of section 28 or where the proviso to sub-section (1) thereof applies, the employees themselves; (vi) the Labour Officer: Provided- Firstly, that the persons entitled to appear or act under clause (v) may authorise any Qualified or Primary Union in respect of such industry to appear or act instead of them : Secondly, that where the Labour Officer is the representative of the employees, he shall not enter into any agreement under section 44 or settlement under section 58 unless the terms of such agreement or settle­ment, as the case may be, are accepted by them in the prescribed manner : Thirdly, where in any proceeding the persons entitled to appear or act under clause (v) are more than five, the prescribed number elected from amongst them in the prescribed manner shall be entitled to appear or act instead.” Section 33A provides as follows : “33A. Persons who may appear in proceeding in which there is dispute between employees and employees.-(1) la any dispute between the employees and employees referred to arbitration of a Labour Court or the Industrial Court under section 72, ail persons, who are parties to the dispute, shall be entitled to appear and act in the proceedings before such Court: Provided that, where the number of employees on either side exceeds five, then such employees shall elect, in the manner prescribed, two persons from amongst themselves to appear and act for them. (2) If a Representative Union desires to be heard in respect of such dispute, it may, on application made to the Court, also be heard by such Court.” 8. Reverting to section 42, in Usman Habib v. The State of Bombay1, a Division Bench of this High Court held that in an industry which has a representative union, the right to give a notice of change under section 42(2) of the Act is not conferred upon an individual employee, but it is conferred upon the representative union, and the only right which section 42(2) confers upon the employee is to submit his grivance to the representative union, but it is ultimately for the representative union alone to decide whether a notice of change should be given and having so decided, it is for the representative union to give the notice. The Court also held that section 73 which confers power upon the State Government to refer an industrial dispute to the arbitra­tion of the Industrial Court, does not contain any suggestion that an employee can approach the Slate Government only through a representative union and under that section any and every employee has access to the State Government. 9. Thus, apart from the limited cases set out in the relevant sections anemployee's grievance can only be canvassed and redress for it sought by a representative of employees. It is pertinent to not that under section 30, an approved union is not a representative of employees. Chapter IV of the Act deals with approved unions. Under section 23 the Registrar may after hold­ ing such enquiry as he deems fit enter a union in the list of approved unions maintained under section 12 if he is satisfied that the union has made rules, the provisions of which are duly observed by the union and that the rules provide for the matters set out in sub-section (1) of section 23. Under sub­ section (3) of section 23, there cannot be at any time more than one approved union in respect of any industry in a local area. The conditions for being entered in the list of approved unions set out in section 23 are different from those required for registration of a union as a representative union or a quali­ fied union or a primary union. The conditions for being entered in the list of approved unions set out in section 23 are different from those required for registration of a union as a representative union or a quali­ fied union or a primary union. An approved union, if it fulfils the requisite conditions in that behalf, may also be registered as one of those unions, but if it does not fulfil such condition it cannot get such registration. In this connection, it is pertinent to note the provisions of section 73A. Under that section notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act, in certain circums­ tances, an employer or “a registered union which is a representative of employees and which is also an approved union” may refer any industrial dispute for arbitration to Industrial Court. This right, therefore, belongs to a union not because it is an approved union, but because in addition to being an approved union, it is also a representative of employees under section 30. 10. As mentioned earlier, the primary object of the said Act is to regulate the relations of employers and employees and to provide for settlement of industrial disputes. An approved union cannot represent employees in any proceeding under the Act, whether it be a proceeding before the Labour Court or Industrial Court or conciliation proceeding unless it is also a union falling in one the catagories mentioned in section 30. Under clause (c) of section 25, however, for the purpose of prevention or settlement of an industrial dispute authorised officers, members of the office staff and members of an approved union have a right to hold discussions on the premises of the undertaking with the employees concerned who are members of the union, to meet and discuss with an employer or any person appointed by him for that purpose the grievance of its members employed in his under-taking and to inspect, if necessary, in any undertaking any place where any member of the; union is employed. If Mr. If Mr. Shrikrishna's contention that the right conferred by section 25 is the exclusive right of an approved union, it would result in a very anamolous situation, for where an industrial dispute exists a union which is a representative of employees and which is not an approved union would not have the right, even if it is the representative union, to hold discussions on the premises of the undertaking with the employees concerned or even to meet and discuss with the employer or any person appointed by him for that purpose the grievances of the employees or for bringing about a settlement of the industrial dispute, even if the employer wants the office-bearers of such union to do so. Such could never have been the intention of the Legislature and to place such a construction upon section 25 would be to render nugatory the TViain object of the said Act by making difficult the prevention or settlement of industrial disputes in which the employer and the union, which is the repre sentative of employees, are ranged on the opposite sides. 11. In support of his submission, Mr. Shrikrishna relied upon the provisions of sections 20 and 22 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (Maharashtra Act No. I of 1972) (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as “the 1971 Act”). Sections 20 and 22 of the 1971 Act provide as follows: “20. Rights of recognised union. Shrikrishna relied upon the provisions of sections 20 and 22 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (Maharashtra Act No. I of 1972) (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as “the 1971 Act”). Sections 20 and 22 of the 1971 Act provide as follows: “20. Rights of recognised union. (1) Such officers, members of the office start and members of a recognised union as may be authorised by or under rules made in this behalf by the State Government shall, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, have a right,- (a) to collect sums payable by members to the union on the premises, where wages are paid to them; (b) to put up or cause to be put up a notice-board on the premises of the undertaking in which its members are employed and affix or cause to be affixed notice thereon: (c) for the purpose of the prevention or settlement of an industrial dispute,- (i) to hold discussions on the premises of the undertaking with the employees concerned, who are the members of the union but so as not to interfere with the due working of the undertaking; (ii) to meet and discuss, with an employer or any person appoint­ed by him in that behalf, the grievances of employees employed in his undertaking; (iii) to inspect, if necessary, in an undertaking any place where any employee of the undertaking is employed; (d) to appear on behalf of any employee or employees in any domestic or departmental inquiry held by the employer. (2) Where there is a recognised union for any undertaking,- (a) that union alone shall have the right to appoint its nominees to represent workmen on the Works Committee constituted under section 3 of the Central Act; (b) no employer shall be allowed to appear or act or be “allowed to be represented in any proceedings under the Central Act (not being a proceeding in which the legality or propriety of an order of dismissal, discharge, removal, retrenchment, termination of service, or suspension of an employee is under consideration), except through the recognised union; and the decision arrived at, or order made, in such proceeding shall be binding on ail the employees in such undertaking; and accordingly, the provisions of the Central Act, that is to say, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, shall stand amended in the manner and to the extent specified in Schedule I.” “22. Rights of unrecognised unions. Such officers, members of the office staff and members of any union (other than a recognised union) as may be authorised by or under the rules made in this behalf by the State Government shall, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, have a right- (i) to meet and discuss with an employer or any person appointed by him in that behalf, the grievances of any individual member relating to his discharge, removal, retrenchment, termination of service and suspension; (ii) to appear on behalf of any of its members employed in the undertaking in any domestic or departmental inquiry held by the employer.” Mr. Shrikrishna contended that section 20 read with section 22 of the 1971 Act showed that apart from the rights specifically mentioned in section 22, none of the other rights mentioned in section 20 appertain to a union which is not a recognised union. In Mr. Shrikrishna's submission, the 1971 Act is a subsequent Act and the Court is entitled to refer to the provisions of the 1971 Act for the purpose of interpreting similar provisions in the earlier Act, dealing with cognate topics. I -am unable to accept Mr. Shrikrishna's submission. 12. In Mr. Shrikrishna's submission, the 1971 Act is a subsequent Act and the Court is entitled to refer to the provisions of the 1971 Act for the purpose of interpreting similar provisions in the earlier Act, dealing with cognate topics. I -am unable to accept Mr. Shrikrishna's submission. 12. The 1971 Act deals two separate topics - (1) recognition of trade unions for facilitating collective bargaining for certain undertakings and to state their rights and obligations and to confer certain powers on recognised unions and (2) to provide for declaring certain strikes and lock­outs as illegal strikes and lock-out. The subject of recognition of unions and the rights and obligations of recognised unions and other unions is dealt with in Chapters III and IV of that Act. Chapter III deals with recognition of unions. Under sub-section (1) of section 10, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), the provisions of that Chapter apply to every undertaking, wherein fifty or more employees are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months. Sub-section (2) of section 10, however, expressly provides that the provisions of Chapter III shall not apply to undertakings in industries to which the provisions of the said Act apply. Under section 11, any union which is for the whole of the period of six calendar months immediately preceding the calendar month in which it makes an application for recognition a membership of not less than thirty percent of the total number of employees employed in any under­taking can apply for being regisitered as a recognised union for such under­taking. Chapter IV, in which sections 20 and 22 occur, sets out the obliga­tions and rights of recognised unions, other unions and certain employees. In State of Bihar v. S. K. Roy2, the Supreme Court held that it is a well-recognised principle in dealing with matters of construction that subsequent legislation may be looked at in order to see what is the proper interpretation to be put upon the earlier Act where the earlier Act is obscure or ambiguous or readily capable of more than one interpretation. There is, however, no obscurity or ambiguity in section 25 of the said Act, namely, the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, nor is that section capable of more than one inter­pretation. There is, however, no obscurity or ambiguity in section 25 of the said Act, namely, the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, nor is that section capable of more than one inter­pretation. By that section, the concerned employer is bound to permit authorised officers, members of the office staff and members of an approved union to exercise the right conferred by that section. It, however, does not contain any prohibition against an employer permitting of his own volition officers, members of the office staff or members of another union which is not the approved union to exercise the same right. The provisions of the said Act for the registration of unions and for entering unions on the list of approved unions are materially different from those for recognition of unions under the 1971 Act. Though section 25 of the said Act is in part materia with clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the said Act, clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2,) of section 20 of the 1971 Act “do not find a place in the said Act. Under clause (d) of section 20(1) the recognised union has the right to appear on behalf of any employee or employees in any domestic or departmental enquiry held by the employer. Further under sub-section (2), a recognised union alone has a right to appoint its nominees to represent workmen on the Works Committee constituted under section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as also to appear in certain matters under the said Act. Equally under section 21 of the 1971 Act, a recognised union alone has the right to appear in any proceeding relating to unfair labour practices mentioned in items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV of the 1971 Act in cases of undertakings to which the provisions of the said Act do not apply. But in cases of industries to which the provisions of the said Act apply, under sub-section (2) of section 21 of the 1971 Act, it is only a re­presentative of employees entitled to appear under section 30 of the said Act which alone can appear in any proceeding relating to unfair labour practices specified in items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV of the 1971 Act. The fact that under section 22 of the 1971 Act the rights mentioned in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (c) of section 20(1) of the 1971 Act which correspond to sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (c) of section 25 of the said Act, are also made obligatory upon employers so far as concerns unions other than a recognised union does not mean that when such a provision is not made in the said Act, unions other than approved unions cannot be given the same rights by the employer. Even under the 1971 Act there is no express prohibition against an employer voluntarily permitting unions other than the recognised union to exercise rights conferred by section 20(1) in addition to the rights statu-torily conferred upon them by section 22. All that section 22 does is to confer some of the rights under section 20 appertaining to the recognised union also upon other union and in respect of such rights what would other­wise have been optional for the employer has been made obligatory. In this connection the difference between the language used in sub-section (1) of sec­tion 20 and that used in sub-section (2) of that section is striking and illuminat­ing. While sub-section (1) does not state that the rights conferred therein upon a recognised union belong exclusively to it, under clause (a) of sub section (2) the recognised union alone has the right to appoint its nominees to represent workmen on the Works Committee constituted under section 30 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and under clause (b) of, sub-section (2) no employee is allowed to appear or act or is to be allowed to be represented in any proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act except through the recognised union unless it is a proceeding in which the legality or propriety of an order of dismissal, discharge, removal, retrenchment, termination of service or suspension of an employee is under consideration. Had the intention of the Legislature been to confer the rights mentioned in sub-section (1) of sec-tion 20 exclusively upon a recognised union, it would have used language similar to that used in sub-section (2). Assuming any aid to construction of section 25 of the said Act is to be sought from sections 20 and 22 of the 1971 Act, a reference to these sections instead of supporting Mr. Shrikrishna's case, negatives it. 13. Assuming any aid to construction of section 25 of the said Act is to be sought from sections 20 and 22 of the 1971 Act, a reference to these sections instead of supporting Mr. Shrikrishna's case, negatives it. 13. For the reasons set out above, I am unable to hold that the rights conferred by section 25 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, upon authorised officers, members of the office staff and the members of an approv­ ed union are exclusive to them and that such rights cannot be permitted by the employer to be exercised by officers, members of the office staff and members of union other than an approved union. 14. In the result, Miscellaneous Petition No. 1716 of 1975 filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, must succeed, while Miscellaneous Petition No. 1422 of 1978 filed by the BEST Workers' Union must fail. 15. Accordingly, I make the Rule issued in Miscellaneous Petition No. 1716 of 1975 absolute and dismiss the Miscellaneous Petition No. 1422 of 1978 and discharge the Rule issued therein. 16. Parties to each of these two petitions will bear and pay their own costs of the petitions. Rule absolute in M. P. No. 1716 /1975 and Rule discharged in M. P. No. 142211978.. ----