( 1 ) ). Rule. In view of facts and circumstances of these three petitions they are taken for final hearing with the consent of learned Advocates for both the sides.

( 2 ) ). The three petitions are pertaining to one and the same question of the law. Therefore, they are heard together in view of involvement of common question of law and in the interest of the parties and with consent of all the parties. I have permitted besides the learned Advocates for the parties in these three petitions, Mr. P;chidambaram, Working President of Gujarat Mazdoor Sangh and Mr. H. K. Rathod,. teamed Advocate representing Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation karmachari Sangh and Other Unions to address this Court.

( 3 ) ). The Special Civil Application No. 738 of 1998 is filed by Vallabhvidyanagar mazdoor Union, seeking writ of mandamus and to direct the respondents to hold an election in Amul Dairy-respondent No. 2 for the purpose of giving the recognition to the petitioner-Union. It is claim of the petitioner that the petitioner-Union is registered under Trade Unions Act, 1926 and it has got enrolling of the workmen of respondent No. 2 and more than 50% of the workmen of respondent No. 2 are the members of the said Union and therefore, the petitioners Union is entitled to get the status of recognised Union. This Union has made representation to the respondent No. 1 by letter dated 16-6-1997 to give such recognition. Thereafter, as desired by the respondent No. 1 - Deputy Commissioner of Labour, all the information sought by him were supplied. But, even in spite of the same, no recognition is given to the petitioner. But by letter dated 5-11-1997, petitioner is informed that besides the petitioner-Union, other four Unions are operating in the said employer, and employer does not wish to record approval to any of the Unions. According to the petitioner, the claim of the respondent No. 2 that besides the petitioner, there are four other Unions operating there is false. Petitioner, therefore, seeks a direction to direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to hold an election in order to find out as who is having the majority of the workmen and then to issue the recognition of a recognised Union to the petitioner.

( 4 ) ). The claim of the petitioner is resisted by the respondent No. 2, in this Civil application No. 738 of 1998. It is contended that the petitioner has neither any fundamental right nor any statutory right to get a recognition. There is no legal obligation on the respondent No. 1 to hold an election and to see which of the labour unions having majority and the respondent No. 2 could not be compelled to give recognition to either the petitioner - Union or any other Union. Thus, it is contended that no petition under Art. 226 could be entertained for giving the recognition to an Union.

( 5 ) ). The Special Civil Application No. 4773 of 1998 and Special Civil Application no. 4810 of 1998 are filed respectively by the employer and the recognised Union of the Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. , to challenge the order issued by the Deputy commissioner of Labour on 17-6-1998, by which, the petitioner in petition No. 4773 of 1998, namely, the Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. , is directed to hold an election in order to find out which of the two Unions, namely, respondent No. 2 - Baroda rayon Corporation Employees Union and respondent No. 3 - Akhil Bharatiya Udyog kamdar Sangh are having the majority of the workmen working with the petitioner. , it is contended by the petitioner that neither the Industrial Disputes Act nor any other Act empower the Labour Commissioner or the Deputy Labour Commissioner to issue such a direction to the employer. The Labour Commissioner or the Deputy labour Commissioner has no statutory right to issue such a direction. As the said direction is illegal and is not authorised by any statute, the action of the Deputy labour Commissioner in writing the said letter should be declared illegal and the same be quash