Recognition of a union confers a status on it to represent workers, and withdrawal of recognition has adverse consequences. Therefore, a body like the union can approach the court under Article 226 of the Constitution if de-recognition is illegal or violates principles of natural justice, even in the absence of a statutory provision dealing with recognition and de-recognition.

M. M. Ismail, C.J.

This is an appeal against the order of Mohan, J., dated 11th August, 1980, allowing W.P. No. 5742 of 1979 filed by the respondent herein.

2. The respondent, was accorded recognition by the appellant by its proceedings No. 1238 dated 30th July, 1969, Paragraph 3 of this order states as follows :

"The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board accepts the recommendation of the commissioner of Labour, Madras and hereby accords recognition under the Code of Discipline in Industry to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Accounts Subordinates Union, Coimbatore (Reg. No. 2472) in respect of the ministerial staff excluding peons, bill collector and store-keepers.

Subsequently the union, namely, the respondent herein, started enrolling members from peons, bill collectors, and store-keepers also. In view of this the appellant proposed to de-recognise the union as having violated the condition of the recognition. The respondent-union pointed out that, though it had changed its name and changed its coverage in the sense of extension of membership, it had not changed, its representative capacity and as a bargaining agent, was still continuing to represent and bargain only for the Ministerial staff excluding peons, bill collectors and store-keepers. Notwithstanding this explanation of the respondent-union, the appellant, by its proceedings dated 24th November, 1979, de-recognised the union. It was against these proceedings the writ petition in question was filed praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari. The learned Judge having allowed the writ petition, the present writ appeal has been filed by the Board.

3. Two submissions were make by Mr. M. R. Narayanaswami, the learned counsel for the appellant. One was that the Writ Petition itself was not maintainable. Because the recognition was not granted under any statute and, secondly, that the Code of Discipline in Industry referred to in paragraph 3 of the proceedings of the Board, dated 30th July, 1969, were themselves not statutory. In support of these contentions, the learned counsel relied on two decisions. One was of the Calcutta High Court in A. C. Mukherjee and others v. Union of India and others, and the other was of the Kerala High Court in M. A. David v. K.S.E. Board, In the former decision paragraph 15 of the judgment states :" *

The other point raised on behalf of the appellants almost goes by admission. The Code of Discipline is not a statutory rule and violation of the said Code is not within the jurisdiction. It has been conceded by Mr. Dutta appearing for the appellants.

"Thus the point was not decided in the judgment, as the learned judges themselves state that the matter went by admission.

4. As far as the second decision is concerned, that was a case of de-recognition make without giving any notice. The contention that was raised there was that there had been a violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no notice was given before the recognition was withdrawn. In that case the Kerala High Court referred to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court to which we have already drawn attention, and pointed out that the facts in that case were almost similar to those in the case before them. Having said so, the learned Judges proceeded to observe :" *

It is not claimed that there is any statutory rule or at least an agreement between the Board and the union that the recognition once granted will not be withdrawn without giving an opportunity to the union to be heard. We hasten to add that, if there is only an agreement, then Art. 226 may not be available, unless, probably, it can be construed that the said agreement is part of the condition of service as contemplated by Art. 309 of the Constitution. In a case like this, where there is no statutory rule or even an agreement, the union cannot insist that it should be heard before the recognition is withdrawn. It must be remembered that what the Board has done in this case was to lay down a policy as to how