M.M. Sundresh, J.

The petitioner Union being one among the four unions operating under the second respondent, has come forward to file these writ petitions, seeking a direction to the first respondent to determine the relative strength of them through a secret ballot and to direct the third respondent to conduct elections among all the Trade Unions existing in the third respondent society for the purpose of electing representatives of the employees to the Board of Trustees of the second respondent Fund under the supervision of the first respondent.

2. The third respondent is the present recognised Union having obtained the said status under the Trade Union Act. This status has been achieved through the check off system. The petitioner Union is stated to be broken away one from the third respondent few years back and now claims to be in majority and therefore seeks the relief. Needless to state that the petitioner Union has not come under the check off system. Incidentally, the term of office of the third respondent qua the recognition under the Trade Union Act comes to an end by the end of this month.

3. With the above said backdrop, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 166 of 2011 (The Management of Foxconn (India) Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director v. Podhu Thozhilalar Sangam, Kanchipuram and others) dated 31.01.2013, the first respondent is the competent authority to conduct the secret ballot to decide the recognition of the Union concerned. The Division Bench has found that the check off system has lost its appeal. A combined understanding of the Trade Union Act read with Industrial Disputes Act mandates the first respondent to undertake the said exercise. The learned counsel submits that it is a case where the second and third respondents are acting in unison and therefore, it is imperative to allow the writ petition. Incidentally, it is submitted that the prayer sought for in W.P.No. 17101 of 2014 need not be gone into and therefore, the same may be closed. Hence, the writ petition in W.P.No. 17101 of 2014 stands closed.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that as per the Regulation governing the recognition of Trade Unions, the petitioner has to give its membership list and thereafter, the second respondent shall have the right to verify the same and or ask for the membership application. Though the petitioner has given the list of members, it has not been followed up with the requisite particulars. Therefore, the petitioner will have to be directed to complete the said exercise.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would vehemently contend that the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in the writ appeal referred to above, has to be seen in its own context, especially, when the management has consented earlier to go through the process of secret ballot. Check off system has been in vogue for quite number of years. The third respondent is a recognised Union for decades. There is no material to dispense with the earlier system. In the absence of any material to hold that the earlier system is not working well or tainted with arbitrariness, the relief sought for cannot be granted.

6. The basic facts governing the case are not in dispute. The recognition granted in favour of the third respondent comes to an end by the end of this month. That there are more than one Unions other than the third respondent is not in dispute and the petitioner is one among them. What the petitioner wants is a process under the aegis of the first respondent to identify the recognised Trade Union among the existing ones.

7. The Regulations governing the Recognition of Trade Unions in the Society dated 25.03.2011 has to be seen in consonance with the provisions contained under the Trade Union Act read with Industrial Disputes Act. Much reliance has been made on the general guidelines with specific refe