JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---Rule. Returnable forthwith. Mr. Aditya Chitale appears for respondent No. 1 and waives service. Mr. S.M. Naik appears for respondent No. 2 and waives service on his behalf. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are formal parties and, therefore, service of rule on the said respondents is dispensed with. By consent rule is taken up Board for final hearing immediately. 2. The petitioner, Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred as "Utkarsha Sabha") is a trade union recognised under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short "MRTU PULP Act") and claiming to be operating in the respondent No. 2 M/s. Parle Products Limited (for short "the Company"). The Utkarsha Sabha was granted statutory recognition in the undertakings of the company in the year 1984. The 1st respondent, Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari. Mahasangh (hereinafter referred as "Karmachari Mahasangh) is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act. Karmachari Mahasangh made an application on 26-6-1997 for cancellation of recognition and suspension of rights of the Utkarsha Sabha under section 13 of the MRTU PULP Act before the Industrial Court at Mumbai. Principally, the cancellation of recognition and suspension of rights of Utkarsha Sabha was sought on the ground that the membership of Utkarsha Sabha has fallen below required strength under section 11 of the MRTU PULP Act for its recognition for a continuous period of six calendar months. The Karmachari Mahasangh filed a list of its members in alphabetical order and other documents in support of its case. The Utkarsha Sabha filed objection to the written statement contesting the application made by the Karmachari Mahasangh on 17-7-1997 and amongst other grounds set up the defence that the application made by the Karmachari Mahasangh was based on false pleadings and information and that in the absence of the requisite pleadings for cancellation under section 13, the application was not maintainable. It appears that the Karmachari Mahasangh also on 17-7-1997 made an application for appointment of Investigating Officer for the purpose of physical verification of the membership. It was stated in the said application that the Utkarsha Sabha is taking under advantage of its recognition and trying to prolong the decision on one or the other pretext and, therefore, in the interest of the member employees, the application for cancellation made by Karmachari Mahasangh deserves to be heard expeditiously. It was stated in the said application that the Utkarsha Sabha is taking under advantage of its recognition and trying to prolong the decision on one or the other pretext and, therefore, in the interest of the member employees, the application for cancellation made by Karmachari Mahasangh deserves to be heard expeditiously. The Utkarsha Sabha filed reply to the application made by the Karmachari Mahasangh on 28-7-1997 and it was inter alia urged that the main application preferred by Karmachari Mahasangh for cancellation of recognition under section 13 of the MRTU PULP Act was not maintainable and deserved to be dismissed at this stage and, therefore, the question of appointing an Investigating Officer did not arise. The said application made by the Karmachari Mahasangh for appointment of Investigating Officer was disposed of by the Industrial Court on 17-9-1997. Though the objection was taken by the Utkarsha Sabha before the Industrial Court that the application made by the Karmachari Mahasangh under section 13 of the MRTU PULP Act was unfair and required to be dismissed, the Counsel for Utkarsha Sabha ultimately stated before the Industrial Court that the Utkarsha Sabha has no objection for the appointment of the Investigating Officer for verification of the membership from the available documents placed before the Court but the Investigating Officer should not be directed to go to the factory to verify the membership of the unions. The Industrial Court ultimately by the order dated 17-9-1997 felt that it was necessary to verify the facts through the Investigating Officer about the majority of the membership from the available documents placed on record by both the parties and, therefore, directed the Investigating Officer to verify the documents filed by the parties before the Court and submit a report that during the relevant period from December 1996 to May 1997 which union was having majority membership and if double membership is found with both the unions the same may be treated as cancelled and submit his report. The said order dated 17-9-1997 has not been challenged by Utkarsha Sabha admittedly and pursuant thereto the Investigating Officer has proceeded verifying the facts of the majority about the membership from the available documents placed on record by both the parties. The said order dated 17-9-1997 has not been challenged by Utkarsha Sabha admittedly and pursuant thereto the Investigating Officer has proceeded verifying the facts of the majority about the membership from the available documents placed on record by both the parties. On 6-10-97, Utkarsha Sabha made an application before the Industrial Court to dismiss the application made by Karmachari Mahasangh under section 13 of the MRTU PULP Act for cancellation of the recognition of Utkarsha Sabha. The application was based on the same ground which was already set out in the written statement/objections by Utkarsha Sabha and it was stated in the application that the Court has issued show cause notice in the present proceedings on 27-6-1997 and it is necessary that unless and until the membership of the Utkarsha Sabha is shown below minimum as required under section 11 of the Act, in the month of June 1997, the month in which the show cause notice was issued, the application itself was not maintainable and liable to the dismissed. The said application made by Utkarsha Sabha on 6-10-1997 was contested by Karmachari Mahasangh and the industrial Court by the impugned order has disposed of the said application after holding that the application shall be considered after the report is received from the Investigating Officer on verification of the total membership of the rival unions. 4. Assailing the order passed by the Industrial Court on 25-11-1997, Mr. Bharucha, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner strenuously urged that the conditions precedent for invoking the jurisdiction under section 13 of the MRTU PULP Act were not satisfied and, therefore, the application made by the Karmachari Mahasangh was liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. The learned Senior Counsel would urge that it was incumbent upon the part of the Karmachari Mahasangh to plead specifically in the application under section 13 that the membership has fallen below 30% for a continuous period of six months preceding the date of the application and also in the month in which the notice was issued and since in the present case there is no pleading that the membership has fallen below 30% in the month of June 1997, the month in which the notice was issued the application was liable to be rejected at the threshold being not maintainable. According to Mr. According to Mr. Bharucha, the learned Senior Counsel, no enquiry by the Investigating Officer as ordered in the order dated 17-9-1997 is required since the jurisdictional fact relating to the maintainability of the application under section 13 was lacking. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel stoutly relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in (Maharashtra General Kamgar Union v. Mazdoor Congress and others)1, 1983(1) Bom.C.R. 381 . 5. Mr. J.P. Cama the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1, in response to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the basic facts for maintainability of the application under section 13 for cancellation of the recognition of Utkarsha Sabha were clearly stated in the application and the application made by Karmachari Mahasangh is not wanting on jurisdictional facts. Mr. Cama the learned Senior Counsel, would urge that under section 13(1)(ii) what was required to be pleaded in the application made by Karmachari Mahasangh was that the membership of the Utkarsha Sabha has fallen below the minimum required under section 11 for its recognition for a continuous period of six calendar months. According to the learned Senior Counsel the expression calendar months' clearly denotes that in the application fall of membership below the minimum required under section 11 for its recognition was required to be pleaded for a continuous period of six calendar months preceding the calendar month in which the application was made. In the present case, the Karmachari Mahasangh made an application on 26.6.1997 and it has been pleaded that the membership of Utkarsha Sabha has fallen below the minimum required for the period from December 1996 to May 1997 and, therefore, there is clear and specific pleading that for a continuous period of six calendar months preceding the date of application the membership of Utkarsha Sabha has fallen below the minimum prescribed and thus, it cannot be said that the jurisdictional facts relating to maintainability of the application were lacking in the application. The learned Senior Counsel would also urge that there could not be any pleading in the application regarding the month in which the show cause notice is issued by the Industrial Court because the applicant could not know in which month after the application has been made by the aggrieved union, the Industrial Court would issue show cause notice. Mr. The learned Senior Counsel would also urge that there could not be any pleading in the application regarding the month in which the show cause notice is issued by the Industrial Court because the applicant could not know in which month after the application has been made by the aggrieved union, the Industrial Court would issue show cause notice. Mr. Cama also relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench in Maharashtra General Kamgar Union which was relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and he also referred to the judgment of the learned Single Judge which gave rise to the appeal in Maharashtra General Kamgar Union. The judgment of he learned Single Judge is (Mazdoor Congress v. S.R. Shinde)2, reported in 1982(45) F.I.R. page 243 delivered by P.B. Sawant, J. (as he then was). Mr. Cama also invited my attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in (Maharashtra Shramik Sena v. Gabriel India Ltd. others)3, 1995 (II) C.L.R. 474. 6. Section 13 of the MRTU PULP Act has come up for consideration before this Court on number of occasions. In Maharashtra General Kamgar Union v. Mazdoor Congress (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that section 3 contemplated (i) fall of membership within a continuous period of six months and (ii) the fall should also be available in the month in which the show cause notice is issued to the recognised union. According to Mr. Bharucha the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, the applicant ought to plead that the membership has fallen below 30% in the month in which the show cause notice has been issued and in the absence of such pleading no cognizance of the application can be taken and such application has to be dismissed at the threshold. I do not find that from the judgment of the Division Bench in Maharashtra General Kamgar Union the said proposition as propounded by Mr. Bharucha flows. In paragraph 5 of the said report the Division Bench has observed thus : "...... We have already observed that the application for cancellation of recognition has been filed on 27th July 1981. I do not find that from the judgment of the Division Bench in Maharashtra General Kamgar Union the said proposition as propounded by Mr. Bharucha flows. In paragraph 5 of the said report the Division Bench has observed thus : "...... We have already observed that the application for cancellation of recognition has been filed on 27th July 1981. Section 13 of the Act of 1971 contemplates that the membership should fall below thirty per cent for a continuous period of six months and such a situation should also exist in the month in which the show cause notice is issued to the recognised Union. The resignation letter, even if it is assumed to be a true resignation letter, would show that 727 employees who were the members of the Mazdoor Congress have resigned with effect from 23rd March 1981 and the period of six months was not over on 27th July 1981 when the application for cancellation of recognition was made." 7. Similarly, in paragraphs 6 and 7, the Division Bench observes thus: "6. Section 13 contemplates:--- (1) Fall of membership below thirty per cent for a continuous period of six months and (2) such a fall should also be available in the month on which the show cause notice is issued to the recognised Union. The fact that the show cause notice is required to be issued necessarily connotes that a Union to whom such a notice is issued has to be informed that its membership has fallen below the requisite strength and that therefore there is a cause for cancellation of its recognition. On a plain reading of section 13, the continuous period of six months must be the one which precede the issuance of the show cause notice. If such an event of the fall of membership below thirty per cent has not occurred, the Industrial Court would have no authority to initiate any proceeding by issuing the show cause notice. As a matter of fact the said fell below thirty per cent of the membership is a ground which must exist on the date of the application and if that ground is not in existence the Industrial Court would be at a loss to know as to what type of show cause notice could be issued to a recognised union. 7. The contention of Dr. 7. The contention of Dr. Kulkarni is that the six months period contemplated by section 13 can also cover the period during the pendency of an application made by the Maharashtra Union. In our opinion such a contention is absolutely untenable for more than one reason. In the first place, we have already observed that the show cause notice is a must before taking any action. Would it be possible for the applicant to file an application before the Industrial Court that there was no fall of membership below thirty per cent for a continuous period of six months (when the application was filed) and still the application should be entertained as the application hopes that during the pendency of the application, there may be such a fall of membership below thirty per cent for a continuous period of six months. Such an application would not be permissible and obviously the Industrial Court would refuse to issue any notice. If at all any notice is issued to the recognised union on the basis of such an application, that union can successfully urge that the matter should be thrown out then and there as far as the condition precedent for the cancellation of its recognition is not in existence." 8. What is highlighted by the Division Bench in the judgment supra is that the continuous period of six months under section 13 must be one which preceded the issuance of show cause notice and that the fall of membership below 30% must exist on the date of the application. These observations were made in the context of the submissions advanced by the aggrieved Union therein that the six months period contemplated by section 13 can also cover the period during the pendency of the application. The Division Bench has not held as is sought to be canvassed that in the application under section 13 of the MRTU PULP Act, there has to be specific pleading about the fall of membership below 30% for the month in which the notice is issued. How could the applicant who makes an application under section 13 anticipate about the date on which a show cause notice would be issued by the Industrial Court. How could the applicant who makes an application under section 13 anticipate about the date on which a show cause notice would be issued by the Industrial Court. Take a case, to illustrate, that an application under section 13 is made by the aggrieved union on 31st January setting out specific pleading that the membership of the recognised union has fallen below 30% for a continuous period of six calendar months preceding the date of application and the show cause notice is issued by Industrial Court on next day i.e. 1st February, can it be said that such application is liable to be dismissed at threshold because it lacks requisite pleading of membership of the recognised Union having fallen below 30% for the month of February in which show cause notice was issued? No, obviously because in the application under section 13 post application facts cannot be stated in anticipation. What is required of the applicant to plead in the application under section 13 is that the recognised Union of which cancellation is sought has fallen in its membership by below 30% for a continuous period of six calendar months preceding the date of the application. The use of expression 'calendar month' in section 13(1)(i) has its own significance and it clearly indicates that the continuous period of six calendar months must precede the calendar month in which the application is made. The legislature has used the expression 'calendar month' in contradistinction to 'month' and, therefore, continuous six months are not required to be counted just from the date on which application is made but preceding the calendar month in which such application is made. On careful consideration of section 13(1)(ii), I am of the considered view that what is required to be pleaded and shown by the applicant in the application seeking cancellation of the recognition of the union is that the membership of the recognised union has fallen below the minimum required under section 11 for a continuous period of six calendar months preceding the calendar month in which application is made and upon such application being made the Court has to proceed in accordance with the procedure contemplated under section 13. However, there is further rider by way of second proviso to section 13 that the recognition of the Union shall not be cancelled unless its membership for the calendar month in which show cause notice was issued was less than such minimum. Therefore, it is also required to be seen by the Industrial Court before it passes the final order that in the calendar month in which the show cause notice was issued, the membership of the recognised Union fall short of the requisite minimum or not. In other words, even if the applicant in the application made under section 13 pleads and shows that the membership of the Union has fallen below the minimum required under section 11 for a continuous period of six calendar months preceding the application but the calendar month in which the show cause notice is issued the membership of such Union was not below the minimum required under section 11, the recognition of such Union cannot be cancelled by the Industrial Court. By second proviso which provides that the recognition of the Union shall not be cancelled under the provisions of this sub-clause unless its membership of the calendar month in which show cause notice was issued was less than minimum cannot be stretched to mean that the applicant must plead in the application under section 13 that for the calendar month in which the show cause notice has been issued, the membership of that Union has fallen below the requisite minimum. This is neither the requirement under section 13 nor could be the requirement for the reasons which I have already stated above. 9. In the aforesaid background when I turn to the averments made in the application made by Karmachari Mahasangh under section 13, I find that in paragraph 13 of the application the Karmachari Mahasangh has averred thus: "13. The most important ground on which the applicant Union is seeking cancellation of recognition and suspension of rights of Non Applicant Union is that the Membership of the Non Applicant Union, for a continuous period of 6 calendar months fallen below the minimum required under section 11 for its recognition. The Applicant Union has filed the list of its members in alphabetical and other documents on which the Applicant Union will rely upon for the purpose of this application. The Applicant Union has filed the list of its members in alphabetical and other documents on which the Applicant Union will rely upon for the purpose of this application. The same are annexed as below;--- i) List of members of the Applicant Union alphabetically in the prescribed format. .... Ann. 'A' ii) Copy of complaint (ULP) No. 1302 of 1996 ....Ann. 'B' iii) Copy of the Complaint (ULP) No. 164 of 1997. ....Ann. 'C' iv) Sample copy of the complaint filed by individual workmen in the Labour Court challenging the suspension. ....Ann. 'D' v) Sample copy of charge sheet issued to 22 workmen. ....Ann. 'E' vi) Copy of Notice dated 28-10-96. ....Ann. 'F' 10. Thus, there is a clear and specific pleading in paragraph 13 that the membership of Utkarsha Sabha has fallen below the minimum required under section 11 for its recognition for a continuous period of six calendar months. The period so stated precedes the date of application. Thus, the prerequisite averments necessary for issuance of show cause notice were existent that membership of the Utkarsha Sabha has fallen below 30 per cent for a continuous period of six months preceding the date of the application was made out. It would be advantageous here to refer to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Maharashtra Shramik Sena v. Gabriel India Ltd. others, 1995(II) C.L.R. 474, where in the application for cancellation made under section 13 in the month of September 1992 the pleading that membership of the recognised Union for the period from March 1992 to August 1992 i.e. six calendar months fell below requisite minimum was held to be sufficient. 11. 11. The question whether the continuous period of six months should immediately precede the making of the application or it can be any period of continuous six months in the past was kept open by the Division Bench in Maharashtra General Kamgar Union (supra) and it is not necessary to be decided in the present case as well because even if it be assumed that continuous period of six months should immediately precede the making of the application, this requirement is met because the application, was made in the month of June 1997 and it is averred that recognised Union did not have requisite membership in the months from December 1996 to May 1997, which is immediately preceding the calendar month in which the application was made. 12. Moreover it is seen that in the impugned order the Industrial Court has kept the objection of the Utkarsha Sabha about the maintainability of the application open by observing that the objection raised by it shall be decided after the receipt of the Investigation Officer's report. The impugned order came to be passed on 25-11-1997 and I am informed by Mr. Cama that now the Investigating Officer has submitted his report. In this view of the matter obviously the Industrial Court would proceed further in considering the objection raised by Utkarsha Sabha in accordance with law. 13. In this view of the matter, the impugned order does not call for any interference and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged. No costs. Petition dismissed.