JUDGMENT : R.A. Jahagirdar, J.—The petitioner is a registered trade union claiming to represent the majority of workmen employed in Vegetable Vitamin Foods Company Limited, which is respondent No. 3 in this petition Respondent No. 2 is also a registered trade union and it also claims to represent the majority of workmen of respondent No. 3 Respondent No. 2 will be hereinafter referred to as "the respondent union" and respondent No. 3 will be hereinafter referred to as "the company" Respondent No. 1 in the petition is the Industrial Tribunal at Bombay. Whose order is impugned in this petition. It should also be stated that neither of the unions is a recognised union under any law. 2. The respondent union submitted a charter of demands upon the company in respect of several industrial matters. Pursuant to the said charter of demands, conciliation proceedings were held. During the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, the petitioner union, which had participated in the conciliation proceedings arrived at a settlement with the company on 22nd of April, 1988. The settlement covered several subjects, such as permanency in employment of workmen, wages, classification of workmen, increments and leave facilities. Demands in respect of subjects not covered by the settlement were given up by the petitioner union. The settlement was to remain in force for a period of three years. The settlement was a settlement otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings. 3. The Conciliation Officer did not act upon the settlement and continued the conciliation proceedings Thereafter, he submitted a failure report. Subsequently, by an order made under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Government of Maharashtra referred the said dispute for adjudication. 4. The dispute in respect of which demands made by the respondent union have been referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication covered wage scales and classifications, service increments, dearness allowance, leave facilities. Shift and other allowances and group insurance scheme. The reference is Reference (IT) No. 103 of 1988. It is now pending before respondent No. 1. The respondent union has failed its statement of claim in respect of its various demands. The company has filed its written statement in which it has pleaded that the fairness of the settlement which the company has arrived at with the petitioner union should be considered. 5. It is now pending before respondent No. 1. The respondent union has failed its statement of claim in respect of its various demands. The company has filed its written statement in which it has pleaded that the fairness of the settlement which the company has arrived at with the petitioner union should be considered. 5. It is at this stage that the petitioner union tried to enter into the adjudication proceedings by making an application on 4th April, 1989. In this application at Ex. UA-1, the petitioner union prayed for being made a party to the adjudication proceedings. The only grounds urged in support of this application were, firstly that the petitioner union represents the majority of workmen and secondly that the petitioner union had made an application for being recognised as a recognised union and that application is pending. 6. The Industrial Tribunal, by its order dated 31st of August, 1989, rejected the application of the petitioner union. While doing so, the Industrial Tribunal noticed that, in the first place, the petitioner union and not produced by material to show that it is the majority union either before it or in the conciliation proceedings. The first ground for being made a party to the adjudication proceedings was, therefore, non-existent. The Industrial Tribunal also observed that the petitioner union was not a party to the dispute which has been referred to it because the petitioner union had already settled the dispute with the company. There was thus nothing to adjudicate upon in so far as the petitioner union was concerned. 7. Ms. Mhatre, appearing in support of the petition, has tried to contend that both the reasons given by the Industrial Tribunal are unsustainable. As far as the first reason given by the Tribunal is concerned, it is unassailable. If the petitioner union well to the Tribunal for being made a party to the adjudication proceedings on the ground that it represented the majority of workmen, it was naturally obligatory on its part to prove the fact of its majority among the workmen of the company. It has not been contended before me that the petitioner union produced any material before the Tribunal or even in the conciliation proceedings to support its claim that it is the majority union. 8. It is then contended by Ms. It has not been contended before me that the petitioner union produced any material before the Tribunal or even in the conciliation proceedings to support its claim that it is the majority union. 8. It is then contended by Ms. Mhatre that the dispute is always between an employer and workmen and not between an employer and a particular union. Irrespective of the fact whether the workmen belong to one union or the other all the workmen must be deemed to be the workmen for the purpose of the adjudication of the dispute involved in the reference. The members of the petitioner union are also the workmen of the company. Hence, they must be regarded as a party to the dispute and hence also a party to the reference before the Industrial Tribunal. 9. The argument is not wholly correct. The dispute is between the parties. The workmen who have made the demands and the employer who refused to concede the said demands are parties to the dispute. Undoubtedly, the demands had been made upon the company. The said demands were taken up in conciliation. The workmen represented by the petitioner union settled their dispute in respect of the demands covered by the settlement and entered into a settlement. It is thus clear that in so far as the workmen represented by the petitioner union are concerned, their dispute ceased to exist. That dispute was not referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. 10. On the other hand, the demands raised by the respondent union did not result in a settlement. The dispute persisted. Conciliation proceedings failed. Hence the reference was made. Therefore, to the dispute in the present reference, the respondent union and the members of the said union on the one hand and the company on the other are parties. The petitioner union is not a party. This is the view which the Industrial Tribunal has taken and I do not find any error of law in this view of the Tribunal. If there are any workmen who are not members of either union, they can naturally appear before the Tribunal pursuant to the notice given of the adjudication proceedings, but the petitioner union representing its members having settled the dispute with the employer and the said dispute not having been referred to the Tribunal for adjudication cannot legitimately claim to be a party to the dispute. 11. 11. Ms. Mhatre, after examining the several provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, urged that any award that may be passed in these adjudication proceedings will be binding upon all the workmen in the establishment and if that is so, the workmen represented by the petitioner union ought also necessarily to be heard before any award is passed. I am of the opinion that at this stage it is not necessary to consider the effect of the award that may ultimately be passed. The legal consequences of the passing of the award will naturally work themselves out under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. As far as the petitioner union's demand for being joined as party to the adjudication proceedings is concerned, the same has to be rejected and has been rejected and I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Industrial Tribunal. 12. In the result, rule is discharged, but there will be no order as to costs.