ORDER P.V. Dixit, C.J.—This is an application under Artoles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari for qushing an order of the Registrar appointed u/s 14 of the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, granting recoginition u/s 3 of the Act, to the opponent No. 2, Steel Worker's Union Bhilai. 2. The petitioner, Bhilai Steel Kamgar Sangh, and the opponent No. 2, Steel Workers Union, are both trade unions registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926. Any such registered union can apply u/s 3 of the local Act for registration as a recognised union. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 provides that on receipt of an application for registration as a recognised union the Registrar shall hold such enquiry as he considers necessary and if he is satisfied that the union fulfils the conditions necessary for registration specified in Section 4 he shall issue a certificate of registration in the prescribed form and register the name of such union. Section 4 lays down the conditions necessary for recognition. Sections 7 and 7-A deal with cancellation of certificate of a recognised union and recognition of another union in place of recognised union. Section 12, which is the material Section here, is as follows:- (1) "Before the commencement of every enquiry under this Chapter, the Registrar shall give public notice of such enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed, and shall not enter upon the enquiry before the expiry of fifteen days from such notice. (2) Any employer and any representative of employees whose interests may be affected by such enquiry may apply for being joined as a party to the enquiry and the Registrar, if satisfied that the interest of such person may be affected by the enquiry, shall permit him to join as a party thereto." Section 13 gives the right of appeal against any order passed by the Registrar to any party aggrieved by the order. 3. 3. After the receipt of the opponent-Union's application for registration as a recognised union, the Registrar put up a notice on the notice-board of the Hindusthan Steel Ltd., Bhilai, on 8th May 1960 saying that the Steel Workers Union, Bhilai, had applied for recognition u/s 3 of the Act and that the said application would be heard by the Registrar after fifteen days from the date of publication of the notice in the Madhya Pradesh Government Gazette. The notice also invited "any employer, employee, and any other person whose interests may be affected by such enquiry" to lodge their objections, if any, to the recognition within fifteen days of the date of the publication of the notice. On 10th May 1960 the petitioner-Sangh addressed letter to the Registrar stating its objection to the grant of recognition to the opponent-Union and praying that it should be given a proper and adequate opportunity to place its objection before the Registrar. The petitioner also made a request for being supplied with copies of the application of the opponent-Union, their constitution, and of the notice to be published in the Gazette. There is some dispute as to whether the Registrar replied to this letter of the petitioner. It has been averred by the Registrar that the petitioner was informed in reply that there was no provision for supply of the copies of the documents wanted by it; that the notice was yet to be published in the Gazette; and that only those objections that would be made within fifteen days of the publication of the notice in the Gazette would be taken into consideration. According to the petitioner a copy of this letter of the Registrar, which was dated 17th May 1960, was received by the Singh on 27th July 1960 when several reminders had been seat to the Registrar. A notice in terms similar to that displayed on the notice-board of the Hindusthan Steel Ltd. was actually published in the Gazette on 13th May 1960. Thereafter on 30th July 1960 the Registrar granted a certificate of recognition to the opponent-Union. 4. The petitioner's grievance is that the Registrar acted contrary to Section 12 in granting recognition to the opponent-Union without intimating to the petitioner. Thereafter on 30th July 1960 the Registrar granted a certificate of recognition to the opponent-Union. 4. The petitioner's grievance is that the Registrar acted contrary to Section 12 in granting recognition to the opponent-Union without intimating to the petitioner. Sangh whether it had been joined as party to the enquiry and without giving it an opportunity of hearing and without even considering the objection taken in its letter dated the 10th May 1960. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, urged that the notices which were published by the Registrar did not at all fulfil the requirements of Section 12 (1) in that they failed to sepecify the time and place of enquiry; that u/s 12 (2) the petitioner was entitled to be made a party, to the enquiry when it had intimated to the Registrar its objection for the grant of recognition to the opponent-Union; and that the petitioner's objection, even though made before the publication of the notice in the Gazette of 13th May 1960, could not be ignored on the ground of being premature and should have been taken into consideration by the Registrar. 5. In our judgment, this petition must be dismissed. Section 12 (1) of the Act does not enjoin the Registrar to specify the time and place of the enquiry in the public notice which he may give under that provision. The notice that is contemplated by sub-section (1) is merely of the fact that the Registrar would hold an enquiry on the application made by the Union concerned for registration. There are no words in that sub-section saying that the Registrar shall give a public notice of the time and place of the holding of enquiry. The provision in sub-section (1) that the Registrar "shall not enter upon the enquiry before the expiry of fifteen days from such notice" is significant and indicative of the fact that the public notice of the enquiry itself need not specify the date and place of the enquiry. If the Legislature had intended that the public notice itself should specify not only the fact of the enquiry but also the time and place of holding it. If the Legislature had intended that the public notice itself should specify not only the fact of the enquiry but also the time and place of holding it. Sub-section (1) would have been differently worded and would have run thus: "The Registrar shall give public notice of such enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed and specify a date not less than fifteen days from the date of the publication on which enquiry will commence. "Sub-section (2) also points to the same conclusion. It gives to the Registrar the power to permit any employer and any representative, of employees whose interests may be affected by such enquiry to be joined as a party thereto. The object of the notice under sub-section (1) is to give an intimation of the fact that the Registrar would hold an enquiry to any employer and representative of the employees, who may desire to join it as a party. The question of fixing a date and place of the enquiry can arise only when applications for being made parties to the enquiry are received under sub-section (2) and the Registrar has decided whether the applying employer or the representative of the employees should or should not be joined as a party to the enquiry. Till then the Registrar is clearly not in a position to fix the date and place of actual commencement of the enquiry. It is only a party to the enquiry who is entitled to participate is the proceeding and to be informed of the date and place of the enquiry. 6. The notice published by the Registrar in the Gazette of 13th May 1960 in so far as it informed the public that an application had been made by the Steel Workers Union, Bhilai, for grant of certificate of recognition and that the application would be heard by him fifteen days after the date of the publication of the notice cannot, therefore, be held invalid merely because it did not specify the time and place of the enquiry. It was, however not in conformity with Section 12 when it proceeded to invite "any employer, employee and any other person" whose interest might be affected by the enquiry to present his objections, if any. It was, however not in conformity with Section 12 when it proceeded to invite "any employer, employee and any other person" whose interest might be affected by the enquiry to present his objections, if any. Section 12 does not lay down that the Registrar shall invite objections from any "employer, employee and any other person" whose interest may be affected by the enquiry, What sub-section (2) of that section says is that any employer and any representative of employees whose interest may be affected by such enquiry may apply for being joined as a party to the enquiry. It does not con template the filing of mere objections without being made a party to the enquiry by any employer or employee or even any representative of employees. There is a difference between a mere objector and a person who has been made a party to the enquiry on the ground that his, interest is likely to be affected by the enquiry. The intimation, therefore, contained in the notice with regard to the presentation of objection by any employer, employee and any other person" was altogether ineffective and to no purpose. It is noteworthy that u/s 12 it is not necessary that the notice should contain an intimation inviting applications within a certain time from any employer, employee or any representative of the employees whose interest may be affected by the enquiry for being joined as a party to the enquiry. Any such person is entitled to apply for being made a party to the enquiry after the publication of the notice under sub-section (1). Here, the petitioner-Sangh no doubt addressed a let not to the Registrar on 10th May 1960 objecting to the grant of recognition to the Steel Worker's Union. If Section 12 had provided that the Registrar should take into consideration the objections filed within a certain time after the publication of the notice by any person interested, then the Registrar would have been required to take into account the petitioner's objection filed on 10th May 1960, even if it had been made three days before the date of publication of the notice u/s 12 (1) in the Gazette. The Registrar could not have rejected if on the ground that it was premature. But, as we have stated earlier, Section 12 does not permit filing of mere objections by any one. The Registrar could not have rejected if on the ground that it was premature. But, as we have stated earlier, Section 12 does not permit filing of mere objections by any one. It is only an employee or representative of employees, whose interest may be affected by the enquiry and who has been permitted to be joined as a party by the Registrar, who is entitled to take part in the enquiry and object to the grant of of recognition to the applying union. The petitioner-Sangh never applied u/s 12 (2) for being made a party to the enquiry. In the letter dated 10th May 1960 the Scenery of the Sangh merely objected to the recognition of the opponent No. 2 adding that the objection should be recorded and the Sangh should be given a proper and adequate opportunity of placing its objections in detail. We are unable to read this prayer as an application contemplated by Section 12(2) for being joined as a party to the enquiry. As under sub-section (2) only an employer or a representative of the employees whose interest may be affected by the enquiry can be joined as a party to the enquiry on so satisfying the Registrar, an application by such an employer or a representative of the employees must contain a definite, statement about being made a party to the enquiry and must also contain material for satisfying the Registrar that the interests of the applying employer or representative of the employees are likely to be affected by the enquiry. The petitioner's letter dated the 10th May 1960 does not contain any such prayer or even a statement showing as to how its interests are likely to be affected by the enquiry. The petitioner-Sangh's complaint that the Registrar granted recognition to the Steel Workers' Union without giving them hearing u/s 12 (2) is, therefore, untenable. 7. There is also another ground on which this petition can be rejected. It is this. If the applicant Sangh thinks that the opponent-Union should not have been registered as a recognised union, it has a remedy of moving the Registrar u/s 7 for cancellation of certificate of recognition granted to the Steel Workers' Union. It can also apply u/s 7-A for its own recognition in place of the opponent No. 2. It is this. If the applicant Sangh thinks that the opponent-Union should not have been registered as a recognised union, it has a remedy of moving the Registrar u/s 7 for cancellation of certificate of recognition granted to the Steel Workers' Union. It can also apply u/s 7-A for its own recognition in place of the opponent No. 2. The grounds which the applicant Sangh can urge under Sections 7 and 7-A are no different from those which it could have urged u/s 12 (2) as a party to the enquiry against the grant of recognition to the opponent-Union. 8. For all these reasons, the petitioner's prayer for the issue of writ of certiorari for quashing the Registrar's order recognising the opponent No. 2 as a registered union must be refused. This applicantion is according dismissed with costs of opponent No. 2, Steel Workers' Union Bhilai. Counsel's fee is fixed at Rs. 50/-. The outstanding amount of security deposit after deduction of costs shall be refunded to the petitioner.