JUDGMENT - Bharucha, S.P. J.:-The interpretation of section 21 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, is the principal issue in this petition. 2. The 1st petitioner is a trade union of employees of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation, the 1st respondent. The other petitioners are some of the 200 odd workmen of the 1st respondent who are designated temporary employees. There are settlements entered into between the 1st respondent and its workmen which lay down the service conditions of the latter. Some time in 1978 the 1st petitioner made a complaint against the 1st respondent before the Industrial Court at Bombay of unfair labour practices under items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act. It was contended that the 1st respondent was engaging persons in its employment on temporary basis on job of permanent nature with a view to deprive them of the status and privileges of permanent employees and deny them the advantage of the terms of the settlements. 3. At the hearing of the complaint before the 2nd respondent two preliminary objections were taken on behalf of the 1st respondent. It was contended that the 1st petitioner, not being a recognised union, was not competent to lodge the complaint, It was also contended that the settle- ments were applicable only to temporary workers. The 2nd respondent by his order dated 3rd October 1978 held that the 1st petitioner being an un- recognised union could not represent the temporary employees who were said to have been affected by the alleged unfair labour practices. Section 21, according to the 2nd respondent, clearly stated that the employees who were concerned with the unfair labour practices mentioned in items 2 and, 6 of Schedule IV must themselves appear or act in all proceedings relating to such unfair labour practices. The 1st petitioner not being a recognised union had no right to represent these employees and, even assuming that some of the employees had given authorities to the 1st petitioner to represent their case, that authority could not be availed of. Since none of the employees had come forward to pursue their complaint, the complaint would have to be disposed of. Since none of the employees had come forward to pursue their complaint, the complaint would have to be disposed of. The 2nd respondent went on to state that even on merits he did not find much substance because less than two years had elapsed after the appointments of the temporary employees were made when the complaint came to be filed. There was no substance in the complaint that there was an unfair labour practice under Item 6 of the Schedule IV. He said that “admittedly” the settlements governed only the permanent employees. As such there could be no failure to implement the settlements. Item 9 of Schedule IV was not attracted. Accordingly, he dismissed the complaint. * It is against this order of dismissal that this writ petition is filed. 4. Section 21 of the Act reads thus : 21. “(1) No employee in an undertaking to which the provisions of the Central Act for the time being apply, shall be allowed to appear or act or allowed to be represented in any proceedings relating to unfair labour practices specified in Items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV of this Act except through the recognised union : Provided that, where there is no recognised union to appear, the employee may himself appear or act in any proceeding relating to any such unfair labour practices. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Bombay Act, no employee in any industry to which the provisions of the Bombay Act for the time being apply, shall be allowed to appear or act or allowed to be represented in any proceeding relating to unfair labour practices specified in Items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV of this Act except through the repre-sentative of employees entitled to appear under section 30 of the Bombay Act.” Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV, relating to general unfair labour practices on the part of employers read thus : 6. “To employ employee as “badlis”, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees.” 9. “Failure to implement award, settlement or agreement.” 5. “To employ employee as “badlis”, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees.” 9. “Failure to implement award, settlement or agreement.” 5. The correct interpretation to place upon Section 21 is this: Where there is h recognised union only that recognised union can be allowed, on behalf of an employee, to appear or act or be represented in proceedings relating to unfair labour practices specified-in Items 2 and 6 of the fourth schedule. Where there is no recognised union an employee may himself appear or act in any proceeding relating to such unfair labour practice. This does not mean that an unrecognised union cannot act or appear in a proceeding relating to such unfair labour practice. It can represent an employee or the employee may appear himself if he so chooses. 6. The interpretation placed by the 2nd respondent under section 21 is clearly wrong and his dismissal of the complaint upon that score is unjustified. 7. Mr. Presswala, learned advocate for the respondents, fairly conceded that the 2nd respondent heard no argument on the second preliminary obje- ction or on merits. His conclusions, therefore, that there was no substance in the complaint under Item 6 or that Item 9 was not attracted cannot be countenanced. 8. In the result, the order of the 2nd respondent dated 3rd October 1978 is quashed and set aside. The Industrial Court shall hear and decide the complaint on merits. The President of the Industrial Court is directedto assign it for hearing to a Member of that court. 9. Rule absolute. 10. The 1st respondent shall pay to the petitioners the costs of the petition. Rule absolute. -----