JUDGMENT : 1. To a Full Bench of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, the following question of law was referred: "Whether the term 'strike' appearing in Sections 12(6) and 13(1)(v) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, means a strike only in the very undertaking for which the Applicant Union has applied for recognition and/or has obtained recognition under the Act, or Whether it also means a strike in any undertaking other than the undertaking for which the Applicant Union has applied for recognition and/or has obtained recognition under the Act." 2. The Full Bench held that the term 'strike' appearing in Sections 12(6) and 13(1)(v) of the Act meant strike in the very undertaking for which the applicant union has applied for recognition and/or has obtained recognition under the Act. The Writ Petition by the appellant before the Bombay High Court challenging the view of the Full Bench was dismissed,' which has given rise to this Appeal. 3. It appears that the respondent union i.e. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union has applied to the Industrial Court for cancellation of the recognition of the appellant union under Sections 13(1)(v). The effort turned futile as the Industrial Court took the view that the appellant union had aided, instigated or assisted commencement or continuation of the strike deemingly illegal under the Act which had not taken place in the undertaking but had taken place in four other establishments unconnected with the establishment in which recognition stood granted. The respondent union then approached the Industrial Court under Section 14 of the Act for its recognition as another union. The respondent union this time Order dated February 23, 1994 in C.A. No. 886 of 1986 was successful in obtaining an order from the Industrial Court to that effect on 14.1.1985. This had the obvious effect of bringing into play Section 13(1)(vii) because in the event of recognition of another union in place of the recognised union cancellation of recognition of the earlier union is the legal consequence. It is by this measure that the-appellant union stand displaced and is here in this Court so as to re-agitating the question of law. 4. Significantly, no interim order was granted by this Court while admitting the appeal though effort was made by the appellant to have the order stayed. It is by this measure that the-appellant union stand displaced and is here in this Court so as to re-agitating the question of law. 4. Significantly, no interim order was granted by this Court while admitting the appeal though effort was made by the appellant to have the order stayed. The respondent union, as a recognised union has functioned ever since the year 1986. The question of law apart, it would remain factually to be determined whether the recognition granted to the respondent-union was justified in terms of Section 14 of the Act. We did not feel inclined to go into that exercise whether recognition granted to the respondent-union under Section 14 of the Act was justified and proper in the circumstances and on such view of the matter it is unnecessary to decide the question of law as dealt with by the Full Bench of the Industrial Court. 5. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed. [Advocate on record:- Mrs. Urmila Sirur]