Full Judgment
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
1. The petitioners seek to challenge the notice issued by the second respondent in proceedings No. Aasi Aa/PaE-1/2006, dated February 9, 2006. By the impugned notice, the second respondent has announced the holding of election amongst different unions functioning in its factory for the purpose of recognising one of the said unions for negotiating the issues relating to the workmen. A reading of the impugned notice reveal that as per the 12(3) settlement, dated October 28, 2005, entered, into between the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and various unions, it was agreed to hold the election amongst the unions for electing the union supported by the workmen for the purpose of negotiating the issues relating to the workmen. As far as the recognition of a union is concerned, it is, by now, well settled that it is not recognised by any statute, though the petitioner in his capacity as General Secretary of a trade union may be entitled to raise an industrial dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. It has been held by a decision of this Court Power Grid National Workers' Union (Southern Region) represented by its General Secretary v. Power Grid Corporation of India, Ltd., (represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director) New Delhi and Ors. 1998 (3) LLN 399. that the election held for recognition of a trade union is not governed by any statute or the management exercising any 'statutory function with regard to the said subject in order to invoke the constitutional remedy provided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. In the light of the said settled legal position, the grievance of the petitioners as against the impugned notice cannot be called in question in a writ petition. Therefore, reserving the petitioners' liberty to work out its remedy by raising an industrial dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, these writ petitions are dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.