ORDER :

Surepalli Nanda, J.

Heard learned counsel Sri B. Shiva Kumar, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 3 & 5 and Sri A.Suryanarayana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 conducting the recognition process of the Respondent No. 4 including the petitioner union’s name contrary to the procedure and also against the undertaking given before the Respondent No.5 Authority as illegal, arbitrary and unjust, consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to conduct a fresh recognition process without including the Petitioner’s union name”.

PERUSED THE RECORD :

3. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and in particular, para Nos. 16, 17, 18, 23, 24 and 25, read as under:

“16. In this connection, it is submitted that the allegation made by the Petitioner is absolutely wrong because the Secret Ballot is conducted from the list of all eligible Workmen and there is every possibility that some of the Workmen who are the members of 'DEFMET