JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by petitioner No. 1, M. P. Bijlee Karmachari Mahasangh (hereinafter referred to as the Mahasangh) a registered trade union and petitioner No. 2, said to be the State Working President of the aforesaid union, seeking quashing of the order dated 15-6-1983 passed by the respondent No. 1, Registrar of Representative Unions under the M. P. Industrial relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby he has accorded recognition to respondent No. 3 M. P. Vidyut Karmachari Sangh (Federation), Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as the Federation) as representative union representing the employees of the industry of electricity generation, transmission and distribution which is carried on by the madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the M. P. E. B. )for the whole of the State of Madhya Pradesh. ( 2. ) SECTION 13 of the Act provides for recognition of a trade union as representative union for the particular industry if it fulfils certain qualifications. This recognition has to be granted for the entire local area prescribed for the Industry. Till 19-9-1980 the extent of local area as notified for the electricity industry was a revenue district and district-wise recognition was granted to various unions as representative unions in respect of different districts. On 17-10-1980 the Government of Madhya Pradesh published a notification dated 19-9 1980 in the M. P. Government Gazette declaring the entire State of Madhya Pradesh to be the local area for the electricity industry in place of the earlier provision which declared Revenue district to be the local area. As a consequence of the aforesaid notification none of the unions earlier recognised as representative unions for their respective local areas viz-Revenue Districts, could be treated as a representative union in respect of the enlarged local area under the notification aforesaid, viz. the entire State of Madhya Pradesh. As such respondent no. As a consequence of the aforesaid notification none of the unions earlier recognised as representative unions for their respective local areas viz-Revenue Districts, could be treated as a representative union in respect of the enlarged local area under the notification aforesaid, viz. the entire State of Madhya Pradesh. As such respondent no. 3 the Federation on 3-11-1980 applied for recognition as representative union for the entire State of Madhya Pradesh The Registrar considered the application under section 13 of the Act and after holding an inquiry has granted recognition to respondent No. 3 the Federation as the representative union by the impugned order Annexure c. The petitioners have challenged the order Annexure c mainly on the ground that the registrar has not followed the principles of natural justice in conducting inquiry for the purpose of determining Federations eligibility for recognition as representative Union. ( 3. ) IN this case the respondents have raised a preliminary objection to the tenability of the petition thus : the petitioners had filed an objection to the application made by the respondent No. 3 for recognition as representative union. The petitioners were heard by the Registrar in support of their objections. The objections have been considered and overruled by the Registrar by the impugned order. The petitioners have a right of appeal under section 22 of the Act. The petitioners should have availed of the remedy of an appeal. The Industrial court in appeal can also consider several allegations which relate to the facts. An appeal is the only adequate and efficacious remedy. As the petitioners have not exhausted this alternative remedy, the petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. Moreover, one of the objectors i. e. M. P. Vidyut Karmachari Janta Union have already preferred an appeal against the impugned order and this appeal has been registered as appeal No. 1/83/itu by the Industrial Court. A Division Bench of this court at Jabalpur by order dated 4-10-1983 has also dismissed a writ petition No. M. P. 2418 of 1983 filed by one of the employees Sunderlal on the ground that the petitioner had a right of an appeal under section 22 of the Act. ( 4. ) IN short the preliminary objection is as to tenability of the petition on account of existence of alternative remedy which has not been availed of by the petitioner. ( 4. ) IN short the preliminary objection is as to tenability of the petition on account of existence of alternative remedy which has not been availed of by the petitioner. For deciding this preliminary objection reference to certain provisions of the Act would be necessary. Under section 13 of the Act any Union, desiring to be registered as a representative union, is required to make an application in the prescribed form to the registrar for recognition as a representative Union in respect of the industry in a local area as defined under section 2 (23) of the Act. On receipt of such application and on payment of the prescribed fee, the Registrar is required to hold an inquiry in such manner as may be prescribed and if he is satisfied that such union fulfils the conditions necessary for recognition specified in section 14, he has to enter the name of such Union in the register mentioned under section 15 of the Act. The conditions of recognition are provided in section 14 of the Act as under:-"14. Conditions of recognition : No union shall be recognised as a Representative Union under this Act, unless: - (i) membership of the union is open to every employee employed in the industry in the local area; (ii) the union has for the whole of the period of three months immediately preceding the month in which the application for recognition is made under section 13, a membership of not less than twenty-five per centum of the total number of employees employed in the industry in such local area. " ( 5. ) SECTION 16 of the Act makes a specific provision for cancellation of recognition empowering the Registrar to cancel the recognition of a union, if the Industrial Court so directs under section 22 or section 69 of the Act, or if the Registrar after giving a show-cause notice and holding an inquiry, is satisfied that recognition was given under mistake, misrepresentation or fraud, or that the membership of the Union has for a continuous period of three months fallen below a minimum required under section 14 of the Act for its recognition. ( 6. ) SECTION 22 of the Act provides for an appeal as under : - "22. ( 6. ) SECTION 22 of the Act provides for an appeal as under : - "22. Appeal to Industrial Court from order of Registrar cancelling recognition- (1) Any party to a proceeding before the Registrar may, within thirty days from the date of the communication of the order passed by the Registrar under this Chapter, appeal against such order to the Industrial Court: provided that the Industrial Court may, for sufficient reason, admit any appeal made after the expiry of such period. (2) The Industrial Court may admit an appeal under sub-section (1)if on a perusal of the memorandum of appeal and the decision appealed against it finds that the decision is contrary to law or is otherwise erroneous. (3) The Industrial Court in appeal may confirm, modify or rescind any order passed by the Registrar and may pass such consequential orders as it may deem fit. A copy of the orders passed by the Industrial court shall be sent to the Registrar. " ( 7. ) IT is the contention of the learned counsel Shri Y. S. Dharmadhikari appearing for the respondents that section 22 of the Act provides for the alternative remedy of appeal which the petitioners have not availed of against the impugned order of the Registrar, whereby recognition as representative Union for the Industry of electricity generation, transmission and distribution has been accorded to the Federation respondent No. 3. ( 8. ) THE heading of section 22, however, states it to be a provision of appeal against the order cancelling recognition. There being a specific provision in section 16 of the Act providing for cancellation of the recognition by the Registrar, apparently, therefore, section 22 is the provision of appeal against the order of the Registrar passed under section 16 of the act. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order of the Registrar which grants recognition to the Federation (respondent No. 3) as a representative Union, is not appealable under section 22 of the Act, since it does not amount to an order cancelling recognition. The respondent No. 3 (Federation) was a recognised Union for the electricity industry in respect of a revenue district until 19-9-1980 as the extent of local area as notified for the electricity industry was only a revenue district. The respondent No. 3 (Federation) was a recognised Union for the electricity industry in respect of a revenue district until 19-9-1980 as the extent of local area as notified for the electricity industry was only a revenue district. But when the extent of local area was altered and the entire State became the local area as per the notification of the State Government dated 19-9-1980, as aforesaid, the representative Union in respect of the earlier local area, a revenue district, could not be treated as a representative Union in respect of the altered local area, the entire State. The Union recognised as representative union for a local area before its alteration ceased to be representative union for altered area giving scope for fresh recognition under section 13 on application. The federation (respondent No. 3) has been recognised as representative Union for the altered area by the impugned order of the Registrar. In such a situation resulting from the alteration of local area the impugned order cannot amount to cancellation of recognition of petitioner Union by the registrar and as such section 22 of the Act apparently has no application and cannot be availed of for challenging the impugned order by way of appeal. ( 9. ) SHRI Dharmadhikari learned counsel for the respondents has, however, argued that section 22 of the Act in fact provides for the remedy of appeal against any order passed by the Registrar under Chapter III of the act, which deals with recognition of representative Unions and Associations of Employees and is not limited to the order cancelling recognition under section 16 of the Act. He has pointed out that the language of section 22 (1) refers to the order passed by the Registrar under the Chapter and not to the order passed under section 16 of the Act only. Learned counsel contends that the heading of section 22 of the Act is misleading as it makes a reference to the order of Registrar cancelling recognition whereas the language of the section does not bear out that limitation and on the contrary provides for appeal against any order passed by the Registrar Under the Chapter. Learned counsel contends that the heading of section 22 of the Act is misleading as it makes a reference to the order of Registrar cancelling recognition whereas the language of the section does not bear out that limitation and on the contrary provides for appeal against any order passed by the Registrar Under the Chapter. He further contends that the heading of the section cannot control the meaning of the language of the section which on a plain reading appears to be a general provision of appeal against any order passed by the registrar under Chapter III of the Act and not only against an order of cancellation of recognition as indicated by the words of the beading. In support of his contention learned counsel cited a decision in Bhinka and others v. Charansingh AIR 1959 S C 960. , in which it is held that the headings prefixed to sections cannot control the plain words of the statute but they may explain ambiguous words. In the instant case, learned counsel submits, there is no such doubt in the words of the section which needs to be resolved by reference to the heading. Another decision relied on by him is the one reported in The Board of Muslim Wakfs Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan and others AIR 1979 S C 289. , in which it is observed that the weight of authority is in favour of the view that the marginal note appended to a section cannot be used for construing the section which is in unambiguous terms. To similar effects are the observations made in other authorities cited by the learned counsel in The Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai and Co. Bombay, AIR 1950 SC 134 . and in Smt. Nandini Satpathy v. P. L. Dani and another AIR 1978 SC 1025 at page 1039. ( 10. ) IT has further been argued on behalf of the respondents that in the present case an appeal has already been preferred by one of the objectors i. e. M. P. Vidyut Karmachari Janata Union against the impugned order of the Registrar dated 15-6-1983 and the same is being considered by the Industrial Court on merits involving facts. The impugned order of the registrar dated 15-6-1983 could have been appealed against by the present petitioners within 30 days from the date of communication of the order. The impugned order of the registrar dated 15-6-1983 could have been appealed against by the present petitioners within 30 days from the date of communication of the order. No mention has, however, been made in the petition about the date of communication of the order. The present petition has been moved on 26-8-1983, statutory remedy of appeal was apparently barred by time and as such the petitioners were not entitled to the exercise of discretion in their favour under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the Industrial Court in an appeal under section 22 of the Act can exercise appellate jurisdiction like all Courts of appeal exercising general jurisdiction in civil cases and can correct all errors including those on the questions of facts which are involved in the instant case. Learned counsel has cited a decision of the Supreme court in S. Jagadeesan v. Ayya Nadar Janaki Ammal College and another 1983 Lab. I C 867. where a writ petition was held not maintainable on the ground of the alternative remedy by way of appeal being available. ( 11. ) IN reply to the preliminary objection Shri G. M. Chafekar, learned counsel for the petitioners has cited three decisions of the Supreme court on the question of relevance of marginal note as an aid to the interpretation of the section. These decisions are Indian Aluminium Company v. Kerala State Electricity Board AIR 1975 SC 1976. , Madurai Coats Ltd. v. The Workmen of Madurai Coats Ltd. AIR 1977 S C 449, and S. P. Gupta and others v. President of India and others AIR 1982 S C 149. ( 12. ) IN Indian Aluminium Companys case (supra) in paragraph 18 of the judgment it is observed as under:- "it is true that the marginal note cannot afford any legitimate aid to a construction of a section, but it can certainly be relied upon as indicating the drift of the section, or, to use the words of Collins M. R. in Bushell v. Hammond (1904) 2 KB 563. "to show what the section was dealing with. " ( 13. "to show what the section was dealing with. " ( 13. ) IN the case of Madurai Coats Ltd. , (supra) section 31a of the payment of Bonus Act (1965) was initially introduced by an amending ordinance (11 of 1975) but the form in which the section was cast and the inadequately expressed marginal note accompanying it led to interpretational difficulties by a subsequent Amendment Act (23of 1976 ). Section 31a was divided into two separate clauses and its marginal note which read to say "special provision with respect to certain employees for payment of bonus" was also amended showing that the special provision contained in the section is related "to payment of Bonus linked with production of productivity. " ( 14. ) IN the case of S. P. Gupta and others (supra) the Supreme Court in paragraph 1096 of the judgment has observed thus : - "a reading of the passages and decisions referred to above leads to the view that the Court while construing a statute has to read both the marginal notes and the body of its provisions. Whether the marginal notes would be useful to interpret the provisions and if so to what extent depends upon the circumstances of each case. No settled principles applicable to all cases can be laid down in this fluctuating state of the law as to the degree of importance to be attached to a marginal note in a statute. If the relevant provisions in the body of the statute firmly point towards a construction which would conflict with the marginal note, the marginal note has to yield If there is any ambiguity in the meaning of the provisions in the body of the statute the marginal note may be looked into as an aid to construction. " ( 15. ) IN the present case there appears no ambiguity in the meaning of section 22 occurring in Chapter III of the Act which as per the plain words of the section, provides for appeal against the order passed by the Registrar under that Chapter to the Industrial Court. An order passed on the application for recognition as a representative Union made by the respondent federation is such an order passed under Chapter III of the Act. An order passed on the application for recognition as a representative Union made by the respondent federation is such an order passed under Chapter III of the Act. The plain construction of section 22, therefore, apparently conflicts with the marginal heading prefixed to the section which refers to only one type of order of the Registrar viz. that of cancellation of recognition by the Registrar under section 16 occurring in Chapter III of the Act. As such the marginal heading cannot be called in aid for construing the section, there being no ambiguity in the language of section 22 of the Act. ( 16. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Singh Engineering Co. v. Regional Director, ESIC, Indore 1983 MPLJ 261 . , in support of his contention that the petition having been admitted for bearing, is not liable to be thrown on the ground of alternative remedy, the availability of which was not free from doubt. He also relied on yet another decision in Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Mehasangh, Ujjain and another v. State of M. P. and others, 1983 MPLJ 68 . , which is also a case arising from an order of the Registrar passed on an application for recognition as a representative Union under the Act. In that case it has been held that the petition cannot be thrown on the ground of availability of alternative remedy because in the circumstances of that case the petitioners were justified in believing that they had no right of appeal. The circumstances in the present case are not different in this regard. As such this petition also cannot be thrown on the ground of availability of alternative remedy as urged by the learned counsel for the respondents. ( 17. The circumstances in the present case are not different in this regard. As such this petition also cannot be thrown on the ground of availability of alternative remedy as urged by the learned counsel for the respondents. ( 17. ) NOW turning to the merits of the case the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two main contentions : firstly that the Registrar has failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 13 of the Industrial Relations rules, 1961 (hereinafter called the Rules) framed under the Act, and secondly, that the Registrar has acted in contravention of the principles of natural justice in the manner of inquiry under section 13 (2) of the Act and as such the granting of recognition to the respondent Federation as a representative union in respect of the Industry of generation, transmission and distribution of electricity in the State of Madhya Pradesh was void and invalid. ( 18. ) IT would be useful to reproduce hereunder the provisions of rule 13 aforesaid in order to examine the question of its compliance in the instant case :- "13 (1) on receipt of an application for recognition from a union under sub-section (1) of section 13 and on payment of a fee of Rs. 5, prescribed in rule 11 the Registrar shall cause a notice to be put up on the premises of all the undertakings in the industry of the local area concerned at such conspicuous place or places, as he may deem fit, inviting objections to the recognition of the union as a representative union within a period to be specified in the notice, which shall not be less than 15 days. (2) If no objection is received within the period specified under sub-rule (1) the Registrar may, before passing any order on the application and taking any action under sub-section (2) of section 13, inquire and call for further information from the union for the purpose of ascertaining whether the union is entitled to recognition under the said subsection. (2) If no objection is received within the period specified under sub-rule (1) the Registrar may, before passing any order on the application and taking any action under sub-section (2) of section 13, inquire and call for further information from the union for the purpose of ascertaining whether the union is entitled to recognition under the said subsection. (3) If any objection is received from any person within the period specified in the notice referred to in sub-rule (1) the Registrar shall fix the date, time and place for hearing the objection and give notice of such date, time and place to the applicant and the objector, on the date so fixed or any other date to which the enquiry may be adjourned, the registrar shall hear the parties and proceed to enquire into the objections which any person has started pursuant to the notice given under sub-rule (1) and into the claim of the union for being recognised as a representative union under the Act. (4) On hearing the applicant union and the objector and if necessary after collecting any relevant information and/or recording any evidence, the Registrar is satisfied that the applicant Union fulfils all the conditions necessary for recognition he shall recognise and register such union in the manner prescribed in section 15. (5) The result of the enquiry made under sub rule (2) or (3) shall be communicated to the applicant union as soon as may be practicable. " ( 19. ) AS is apparent from the impugned order of the Registrar (Annexure c) notices under Rule 13 (1) were issued on 26-3-1983 by the Registrar on the application of the Federation under section 13 (1) of the Act to the M. P. Electricity Board and the Board was requested by the Registrar to exhibit the notices at different units of the Board by 7-4-1983. However, because of distances of the various units of the Board of the M. P. Electricity Board throughout the State and the paucity of time all the notices could not be exhibited by 7-4-1983. Schedule a to the impugned order discloses that the notices under rule 13 (1) of the Act were exhibited at various units of the M. P. Electricity Board numbering 231 which included units up to the level of a sub divisional unit incharge of sub-divisional engineer. ( 20. Schedule a to the impugned order discloses that the notices under rule 13 (1) of the Act were exhibited at various units of the M. P. Electricity Board numbering 231 which included units up to the level of a sub divisional unit incharge of sub-divisional engineer. ( 20. ) IN response to the notices inviting objections to the recognition of the applicant Union, the Federation, 106 objections were received by the registrar from different unions and the employees, as is evident from Schedule b of the impugned order. The Registrar conducted the inquiry as per programme fixed for hearing at places viz. , Raipur, Bilaspur, Jabalpur, satna, Tndore, Dewas, Ratlam, Ujjain, Bhopa! and Gwalior. The objectors were invited to these places for hearing on various dates from 16-5-1983 to 1-6-1983 and timings as indicated in Schedule c of the impugned order of the Registrar (Annexure c ). ( 21. ) AS per Rule 13 (1) of the Act, the Registrar is required to cause the notices to be put up on the premises of all the undertakings in the industry of the local area concerned inviting the objections to the recognition of the applicant Union as a representative union within a period to be specified in the notice which shall not be less than 15 days. It is the objection of the petitioner that notices were caused to be put up on the premises of only 231 units in the Industry of Electricity, Generation, transmission and distribution although there were 2800 offices and units existing in the Industry which also included private power-houses for generation of electricity attached to mills like Nepanagar power house, J. C. Mill power house and Nagda power house etc. It is, therefore, argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the inquiry held by the Registrar is vitiated for want of adequate publicity of the notice under Rule 13 aforesaid. ( 22. ) THE Registrar has in his impugned order deait with the above aspect and has held that presently it is only the M. P. Electricity Board which carries on the industry of electricity, generation, transmission and distribution in the entire State. ( 22. ) THE Registrar has in his impugned order deait with the above aspect and has held that presently it is only the M. P. Electricity Board which carries on the industry of electricity, generation, transmission and distribution in the entire State. The privately owned undertakings which are ancillary to the Industry of textile or paper or other industry cannot be covered under the Industry of electricity generation, transmission and distribution as such, as has also been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents. The Industry of textile, according to the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents, remains such an industry if predominantly textile manufacture is carried on even though for such manufacture an ancillary unit for generation of electricity be setup for private consumption of electricity by that Industry and this would not convert the textile Industry into an industry of generation, transmission and distribution. ( 23. ) SECTION 1 of the Act makes the Act applicable to such undertakings in any Industry wherein the number of employees on any day during 12 months preceding or on the date of notification of the Act (i. e. 31st December, 1960) or on any day thereafter, was or is more than one hundred. The terms industry and undertaking have been defined in clauses 19 and 33 of section 2 of the Act, as under : -"industry" means:- (a) any business, trade, manufacture, undertaking or calling of employees: (b) any calling, service, employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of employees; and includes- (i) any branch of an industry or group of industries which the state Government may, by notification declare to be an industry fur the purpose of this Act;" "undertaking" means a concern in any industry"; the meaning of the word concern used in the definition of undertaking is, however, not defined in the Act. But the learned counsel for the respondents bad cited a decision of the House of Lords in Russell (Inspector of taxes) v. Scott 1948 AC 422. , which at page 429 has observed :-"concern" is a very wide word, and appears to imply an adequate degree of business organization for the purpose of carrying on the undertaking. But the amount of organization needed must depend upon the character of the concern itself". ( 24. , which at page 429 has observed :-"concern" is a very wide word, and appears to imply an adequate degree of business organization for the purpose of carrying on the undertaking. But the amount of organization needed must depend upon the character of the concern itself". ( 24. ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents has contended that the industry of electricity generation, transmission and distribution is carried on by a single organisation in the State, the M. P. Electricity Board which has its head office at Jabalpur and according to him the requirement of rule 13 (1) of the Act is complied by causing a notice to be put up at a conspicuous place in the head office at Jabalpur. However, the notices under Rule 13 (1) for adequate publicity has been put up at 231 units or offices of the organization, the M. P. Electricity Board for adequate publicity of the notice inviting objections to the application of the Federation for recognition as a representative union. ( 25. ) THE recognition of a Union as a Representative Union under the act has to be in respect of an industry in a local area. The local area for a number of industries including the industry of electricity generation, transmission and distribution used to be the area comprised in a revenue district until it was altered by notification dated 19-9-1980 aforesaid, which declared the entire area comprised in the State of Madhya Pradesh to be the local area for the purpose of recognition of a representative union in respect of the industry of electricity generation, transmission and distribution, carried on by a single organization, the M. P. Electricity Board. No corresponding suitable amendment was however introduced in Rule 13 of the Rules for the purposes of adequate publicity of notice inviting objections to the application for recognition as a representative union in case of such an organization of industry as the M. P. Electricity Board having a net work of offices units throughout the territory of the State. No corresponding suitable amendment was however introduced in Rule 13 of the Rules for the purposes of adequate publicity of notice inviting objections to the application for recognition as a representative union in case of such an organization of industry as the M. P. Electricity Board having a net work of offices units throughout the territory of the State. However, apart from the question whether or not the M. P. Electricity Board could be regarded as a single undertaking or concern of the industry of electricity generation, transmission and distribution the Registrars action of causing notices to be put up at 231 offices/units of the M. P. Electricity Board for adequate publicity of notice for inviting objections to the Federations application for representative union, was in any case appropriate and called for in the situation. ( 26. ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that for proper compliance of Rule 13 (1) of the Act notices should have been put up not only at the bigger offices of the M. P. Electricity Board including the Divisional and Sub-divisional offices but also at all the sub-stations irrespective of the number of employees working at those sub-stations, because all the employees of the Industry are naturally interested in the matter of recognition of a union as a representative union, the reason being that a recognised union becomes their spokes-man; learned counsel relied on the case Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Mahasangh (supra), in support of his argument. ( 27. ) THE present case is, however, distinguishable from the citation made above. Unlike the case cited, the notices in the present case under section 13 (1) have been adequately published inasmuch as the notices were put up in 231 offices / units of the M. P. Electricity Board. ( 28. ) IN the circumstances of the present case, it may not be necessary for us to go into the question whether M. P. Electricity Board as a single organization for the entire State of Madhya Pradesh could be treated as one undertaking in the industry of electricity generation, transmission and distribution so as to hold the requirement of Rule 13 (1) fulfilled on a notice being put up at the Head office of M. P. Electricity Board alone, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents. Assuming each of 231 offices organised by the M. P. Electricity Board as separate concern or undertaking for the sake of Rule 13 (1) the requirement of notices under that rule stands fulfilled in respect of each of them. The sub-stations which are controlled by the offices at higher levels like the sub-divisional or divisional offices are small units which can be treated as parts of the respective controlling units, because if it be assumed that these sub-stations could also be regarded as concerns irrespective of the fact of organization relating to them and as such separate undertakings, it has to be. demonstrated that more than one hundred employees have worked on any day since twelve months preceding 31st December, 1960 at any one of these sub-stations in order to attract the applicability of the Act and the Rules to these substations. It is not the case of the petitioner that any such unit or office, of the M. P. Electricity Board which employs or at any time employed more than one hundred workers, has been left out for the purpose of causing a notice to be put up on its premises as contemplated in Rule 13 (1) of the act. ( 29. ) THE petitioner has made a grievance that at some of the offices / units of the M. P. Electricity Board the notices put up for inviting objections did not allow a time period of 15 days as provided in Rule 13 (1 ). The petitioner has, however, not filed any copy of the notice to demonstrate this position and no objector has come forward to complain any prejudice in this regard. The petitioner mahasangh and its various branches who appeared as objectors before the Registrar at various places of hearing do not appear to have been prejudiced. ( 30. ) IN the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been noncompliance of Rule 13 (1) of the Act is liable to be rejected. ( 31. ) THE second grievance of the petitioner is as to the manner or procedure of enquiry. The Registrar had fixed the date, time and place tor hearing the objection of each objector including the petitioner and had given notice of such date, time and place to the applicant Federation and the objector. ( 31. ) THE second grievance of the petitioner is as to the manner or procedure of enquiry. The Registrar had fixed the date, time and place tor hearing the objection of each objector including the petitioner and had given notice of such date, time and place to the applicant Federation and the objector. After hearing the parties and inquiring the objections the Registrar proceeded to another place for hearing of the other objectors who had been noticed for hearing at that place. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that each of the objectors should have been given opportunity of hearing at all such places where the Registrar had fixed the inquiry for hearing other objectors. The Registrar by not making known his programme beforehand as regards the hearing of objectors at various places on different dates, had denied, the opportunity to the petitioner and other objectors to have their say in respect of the other objections. But this grievance, in our opinion, is without any substance, because as per the requirement of sub-rule (3) of Rule 13, the inquiry into the objection of a particular objector has to be made at a particular place, date and time as may be fixed by the Registrar. After hearing of the objections of the objector, the Registrar is not required under Rule 13 to afford further opportunity of participation to that objector in respect of hearing of objection of another objector, who has been noticed for hearing at another place of hearing. As such no grievance can be made by the petitioner, if an objector was not given notice of the place of hearing in respect of the objections other than his own. In this connection learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that an objector to the application for recognition as a representative union, cannot claim a right to be heard in respect of the objection by another objector. It is, however, not the specific case of the petitioner mahasangh that they had asked for opportunity to produce any further evidence at any other place of hearing where the Registrar had fixed the case for further inquiry and that the registrar refused to let them know his programme of enquiry at that place. ( 32. It is, however, not the specific case of the petitioner mahasangh that they had asked for opportunity to produce any further evidence at any other place of hearing where the Registrar had fixed the case for further inquiry and that the registrar refused to let them know his programme of enquiry at that place. ( 32. ) TO come to the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the manner of enquiry conducted by the Registrar is in violation of the principles of natural justice, it is urged that the manner of inquiry required to be held by the Registrar under section 13 (2) of the Act has not been prescribed in the Rules. However, the Registrar can grant recognition only after proper inquiry, on being satisfied that the applicant union fulfils the conditions necessary for recognition specified in section 14 of the Act. As has been provided in section 14, there are two conditions viz. that the membership of the Union is open to every employee employed in the industry in the local area and that the Union has, for the whole of the period of three months immediately preceding the month in which the application for recognition is made under section 13, a membership of not less than twenty-five per centum of the total number of employees employed in the industry in such local area. The local area for the industry of electricity, generation, transmission and distribution is, as stated earlier the whole of the territory of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Learned counsel has urged that in order to reach the conclusion that the applicant Union satisfies the condition of having a membership of not less than 25% of the total number of employees employed in the industry in the State of Madhya pradesh, the facts requiring verification in the inquiry by the Registrar were as to what is the total number of employees in the industry in the State and what is the total number of membership of the applicant Union. In the absence of rules prescribing the procedure for inquiry it was the duty of the registrar to formulate the steps and procedure for conducting the inquiry so that the principles of natural justice could be complied. In the absence of rules prescribing the procedure for inquiry it was the duty of the registrar to formulate the steps and procedure for conducting the inquiry so that the principles of natural justice could be complied. Learned counsel argues that the entire inquiry made by the Registrar is vitiated because the petitioners were not given proper opportunity to demonstrate that neither the list of total number of employees in the industry nor the strength of membership of the applicant union as accepted by the Registrar, was correct. The Registrar according to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, did not evolve any such satisfactory method of enquiry for verification of total number of employees in the industry and the strength of membership of the applicants union viz. the federation (respondent No. 3) as would give opportunity to the objectors to effectively participate. The petitioner alleged bogus membership in the applicants union, for a proper verification, it was not sufficient to tally the names of the members of the union with the list of employees working in different units of the M. P. Electricity Board. ( 33. ) THE Registrar appears to have determined the question of membership of the applicant Federation on the basis of affidavits and records at various places of hearing. The suggestion of the objectors that the question should be decided by examining individual employee or by taking affidavits from each employee was, however, rejected by the Registrar being not feasible since in the wide-spread net work of offices/units of the organization of the M. P. Electricity Board including farflung places throughout the State nearly 49,000 employees were working in the industry of generation, transmission and distribution carried on by the M. P. Electricity board during the material period. The inquiry for recognition of a representative union has to be completed with reasonable expedition as is apparent from the scheme of the provisions relating to recognition of representative unions. Sub-section (ii) of section 14 of the Act contemplated the determination of membership during the period of three months immediately preceding the month in which the application for recognition is made by the applicant union. Sub-section (ii) of section 14 of the Act contemplated the determination of membership during the period of three months immediately preceding the month in which the application for recognition is made by the applicant union. Section 16 (b) clause (ii) of the Act contemplates cancellation of recognition if the membership of the union has for a continuous period of three months fallen below the minimum required under section 14 of the Act for its recognition. Thus, if the fluctuations for a period of three months can matter for grant or cancellation of recognition of union, it is reasonable to presume that the proceedings of inquiry into the application of a union for recognition must be concluded with expedition and within a relatively short duration. Having regard to the necessity of expedition in conducting the inquiry, the Registrar is expected to devise only such procedure for inquiry as would not render it dilatory and cumbersome. From the stand point of the interest of employees also there must come into existence a representative union in order to be able to represent the interest of the employees as early as practicable. In this background the method or procedure of accepting uncontroverted affidavits of the applicant Federation as evidence after inviting objections by affixing notices at 231 offices/units of the M. P. Electricity Board throughout the state, instead of inviting affidavits from all employees or examining them individually, cannot be said to be in any sense defective or not complying with the principles of natural justice. ( 34. ) THE Registrar in para 9 of the impugned order stated that he had made verification of the permanent / regular employees from the Muster roll of the M. P. Electricity Bard but from such verification there was no difficulty in reaching the conclusion. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the nominal Muster Roll employees and employees employed in Cement Pole Factories of M. P. Electricity Board were left out of consideration as also the employees employed by various private electricity undertakings were not taken into account. But these objections do not appear to have been taken before the Registrar and as such cannot be allowed to be raised here for the first time. ( 35. But these objections do not appear to have been taken before the Registrar and as such cannot be allowed to be raised here for the first time. ( 35. ) THE Registrar in his impugned order has come to the conclusion that during the material period of three months i. e. August, 1980 to October, 1980 the membership of the applicant Union varied from 41. 63% to 42. 57% of the total number of employees in the industry of generation, transmission, distribution carried on by the M. P. Electricity Board. The impugned order of the Registrar, in our opinion, does not suffer from the alleged defects of either the noncompliance with Rule 13 of the Rules or the non-compliance of the principles of the natural justice in the manner of inquiry that he adopted in the absence of any specific Rules in that regard. ( 36. ) IN the result this petition is dismissed with costs. The counsels fee shall be Rs. 250. Petition dismissed.