JUDGMENT : B.N. Srikrishna, J. 1. This Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an order dated 29th November 1994 made by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur, in Complaint (ULP) No. 57 of 1993 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, by which the 2nd Respondent was transposed as the Complainant in the Complaint. Also challenged is an order dated 19th April 1995 made by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur, in the same Complaint by which the Complaint itself was dismissed as withdrawn by the 2nd Respondent. 2. The Petitioner is the Joint Secretary of a Trade Union representing the workmen of an erstwhile distillery run by a Co-operative Society by the name Nira Valley Co-operative Distillery Limited at Phaltan. The 1st Respondent is a co-operative society in Phaltan which manufacture sugar. Prior to 3rd October 1991, the co-operative society known as Nira Valley Co-operative Distillery Limited was controlled by three sugar Manufacturing Co-operative Societies, one of whom was, the 1st Respondent. By an order u/s 17 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, dated 10th September 1990, the Nira Valley Co-operative Distillery Limited was amalgamated in the 1st Respondent Co-operative Society. 3. By an order made on 3rd October 1991 by the Joint Director, Sugar (Administration) and Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, the registration of Nira Valley Co-operative Distillery Limited at Phaltan was cancelled and it was directed that the assets and liabilities of the said merged co-operative society would become the assets and liabilities of the 1st Respondent Society. There were disputes with regard to the taking over of the services of the employees who were working in the erstwhile distillery society. Out of the 242 workmen working in the Nira Valley Co-operative Distillery Limited, according to the petitioner, about 200 workmen were taken over in the employment of the 1st Respondent on same conditions of service as applicable to them under their previous employer. There was a dispute with regard to about 42 workmen, in whose case the 1st Respondent offered to take them in their service on changed conditions of service. The petitioner's case is that, in respect of the 42 workmen, the 1st Respondent was offering totally different and prejudicial conditions of service and the workman refused to accept them as a condition for employment. The petitioner's case is that, in respect of the 42 workmen, the 1st Respondent was offering totally different and prejudicial conditions of service and the workman refused to accept them as a condition for employment. While this dispute was pending between the parties the petitioner filed complaint (ULP) No. 57 of 1993 before the Industrial Court, Kolhapur, invoking Items 1(a), 4(a), (c) and (f) of Schedule II read with Items 3, 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. The petitioner contended before the Industrial Court that the 1st Respondent's refusal to continue about 42 workmen in service with their original conditions of service amounted to unfair labour practice and demanded appropriate reliefs. 4. By an order dated 1st October 1994 made in Review Application (ULP) No. 1 of 1993, the Industrial Court reviewed its own earlier rejection of the interim reliefs and directed the 1st Respondent to employ 42 employees named in the Annexure to the Complaint without any change in their service conditions as they existed during their employment with Nira Valley Co-operative Distillery Limited, prior to the transfer of the said undertaking to the 1st Respondent, pending the hearing and disposal of the complaint. The said order was challenged both, before a learned single Judge and in Appeal, where the challenge failed and the order passed by the Industrial Court on 1st October 1994 has become final. 5. When the Complaint was taken up for evidence and evidence was being recorded, an application came to be filed by the 2nd Respondent before the Industrial Court on 3rd October 1994. The gist of the application was that the 2nd Respondent was the representative, recognised and approved union under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, in the local area of Phaltan Taluka in the sugar industry and that, as a result of the merger of Nira Valley Co-operative Distillery Limited with the 1st Respondent, distillery activity undertaken by the 1st Respondent was covered under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, and further that as the representative union, it was the 2nd Respondent alone which had the right to represent the employees before the Industrial Court. This application was opposed by the reply filed by the petitioner on 23rd November 1994 in which, inter alia, the Petitioner contended that the 2nd respondent had failed to place on record any material from which it could be demonstrated that the distillery taken over by the 1st Respondent under the amalgamation was being run as an integral part of the sugar manufacturing concern, which was the condition precedent for application of the Notification dated 4th October 1952 as amended by the Notification dated 11th August 1976 applying the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, to units in the sugar industry. 6. By the impugned order dated 29th November 1994, the Industrial Court allowed the application of the 2nd Respondent, transposed the 2nd Respondent as the Complainant and directed it to carry out appropriate amendments. By an subsequent order dated 19th April 1995, the Industrial Court disposed of the complaint as withdrawn by the 2nd Respondent. Hence this writ petition. 7. In my view, the impugned orders of the Industrial Court are required to be quashed and set aside on the short point that the Industrial Court has decided the crucial question whether the distillery was an integral part of the Sugar Industry concerned without any evidence on record. Though the question was pointedly raised in the objection filed by the petitioner, a perusal of the impugned order dated 29th November 1994 does not indicate application of mind to this crucial question. The learned Advocate General, appearing for the 1st Respondent, contended that the issue could be decided on the material on record. The expression "concern" used in the concerned Notification applying the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act to Sugar Industry, in my opinion, cannot be equated with the 1st Respondent Co-operative Society, but bears the meaning of the Industrial activity of manufacture of sugar. Even on the record of this Court, though there are certain documents produced at Exhibit 'E' and Exhibit 'F" by the Petitioner to canvass the contention that the distillery was not being run as an integral part of the sugar manufacturing concern, no record has been filed by the 1st Respondent contradicting the said factor. In any event, there is no adequate material on the record of this writ petition from which the factual question can be substantially resolved. In these circumstances. In any event, there is no adequate material on the record of this writ petition from which the factual question can be substantially resolved. In these circumstances. I am of the view that both the impugned orders would have to be set aside and the complaint and the two applications restored to the file of the Industrial Court, Kolhapur, with a direction to the Industrial Court to record evidence on this issue and thereafter dispose of the Complaint and the two Applications in accordance with law. 8. The learned Advocate-General, however, prays that, irrespective of whether the distillery is covered under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, or the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he would like to urge that the 2nd Respondent Union alone has the locus standi to represent the 42 workmen concerned in Complaint (ULP) No. 57 of 1993. The said contention has not been in any manner decided in this judgment and it shall be open to the parties to canvass this contention before the Industrial Court. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders of the Industrial Court dated 29th November 1994 and 19th April 1995 made in Complaint (ULP) No. 57 of 1993 are hereby quashed and set aside. The Complaint as well as the applications made by the 2nd Respondent dated 3rd October 1994 at Exhibit NAU-1 and the application made by the 2nd Respondent at Exhibit NAU-3 are restored to the file of the Industrial Court. 10. The Industrial Court shall, after recording such evidence as the parties may produce, first decide the first issue as to whether the distillery which is merged in the 1st Respondent now is being run as an integral part of the sugar manufacturing concern of the 1st Respondent and thereafter decide whether the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, would be applicable to the distillery unit of the 1st Respondent Society. This issue shall be decided within a period of three months from the writ of this Court reaching the Industrial Court. 11. The Industrial Court shall thereafter consider the applications made by the 2nd Respondent for substitution in the stead of the petitioner and dispose it of in accordance with law. 12. After disposing of the above applications, the Industrial Court may take up the issue of withdrawal of the Complaint by the 2nd Respondent necessary. 11. The Industrial Court shall thereafter consider the applications made by the 2nd Respondent for substitution in the stead of the petitioner and dispose it of in accordance with law. 12. After disposing of the above applications, the Industrial Court may take up the issue of withdrawal of the Complaint by the 2nd Respondent necessary. If the Complaint still survives, the Industrial Court shall dispose it of on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 13. Rule accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs. 14. Issuance of certified copy of this judgment is expedited. 15. Writ to go down as soon as possible.