Judgment : 1. Both the counsel have agreed to decide the main writ petition itself. .2. The petitioner-union has to filed the above writ petition seeking to issue a writ of mandamus , directing the respondents 1 to 3 to hold secret ballot in the 2nd respondent establishment among class III and class IV employees to ascertain the representative character of the unions so as to facilitate their nominees to be made as trustees of the 2nd respondent-trust and also for negotiating with the 2nd respondent-trust on all matter pertaining to the workman of Port Trust as a negotiating agent. 3. The petitioner-union is registered under the Trade Unions Act. It is not in dispute the Ministry of Surface Transport evolved a scheme which is applicable to all Major Port Trusts and all Dock Labour Boards for “ check off” system. The said scheme was framed for the purpose of appointment of Labours Trustees on the boards of Major Port Trusts, appointment of members representing labour on the Dock Labour Boards, appointments of labour representatives on the Dock Workers Advisory Committee, and also appointment of labour representatives on the Bi-partite Wage Negotiations Committee. It is also not in dispute that a meeting was held on 26. 1998. As per the board’s resolution No.19 dated 25. 98, the matter was discussed with the representatives of all unions registered under the Trade Unions Act, on 6. 98. Although there were some objections to the introduction of “check off” system as envisaged in the letter dated 24. 1998 by all the unions, the general consensus reached was that the system could be introduced in the Tuticorin Port Trust. As resolution on check off system was passed, the strength of the respective unions were furnished to the board of Trustees in the meeting held on 211. 1998. This, according to the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner was taken as a strength of the unions for the purpose for which the check off system was introduced. Subsequently, on the basis of some resignation of workmen from the previous union and production of authorisation letters by the 4th respondent-union, the petitioner’s Union has come down to No.3 in strength as on 1. 1999. So aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. .4. Subsequently, on the basis of some resignation of workmen from the previous union and production of authorisation letters by the 4th respondent-union, the petitioner’s Union has come down to No.3 in strength as on 1. 1999. So aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. .4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted, on the basis of the above said facts, that the Tuticorin Port Trust has not properly implemented the scheme. Though the petitioner had accepted for introduction of the said scheme, the same cannot be implemented properly and so the request of the petitioner for secret ballot has to be accepted. According to the learned senior counsel, testing the strength of the Unions by secret ballot among the workers has been accepted by various courts. He has also relied on the order of the Government directing for secret ballot with respect to Bombay Port Trust. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 has submitted that when the petitioner-Union itself had agreed for check off system, it cannot now ask for secret ballot, merely because, it lost its strength by resignation of certain workers from the Union. He has also relied on the authorisation letters submitted by the petitioner-union workers who had resigned from other Unions and joined the petitioner-Union. He has also submitted that the case of the petitioner that the check off system has not been properly implemented, cannot be correct. The same has been implemented strictly in accordance with the said scheme. The learned senior counsel appearing for the 4th respondent-union while supporting the case of the Port Trust has submitted that the Port Trust has been strictly implementing the said scheme and the case of the petitioner- Union that the said scheme cannot be implemented properly, cannot be correct. Having participated in the meeting and accepted for check off system, the petitioner-Union is estopped from demanding secret ballot in the above writ petition. According to the learned senior counsel, even if there are any irregularities in submitting the authorisation letters, certain safeguards have been provided to rectify the same. So, the petitioner-Union cannot sustain this writ petition on the assumption that check off system could not be implemented properly. .6. It is not in dispute that on the basis of the Ministry’s letter dated 24. So, the petitioner-Union cannot sustain this writ petition on the assumption that check off system could not be implemented properly. .6. It is not in dispute that on the basis of the Ministry’s letter dated 24. 1998, to introduce the scheme for check off system, the same was placed before the Board in the meeting held on 25. 1998. The Board of trustees of the 2nd respondent-port trust resolved that the matter should be discussed, with the representatives of all unions registered under the Trade Unions Act, on 6. 1998. Accordingly on the basis of the discussions though there were some objections, the general consensus reached was to introduce the check-off system in the 2nd respondent port trust. The last date for collection of the authorisation forms though the unions was fixed as 20.6.1998. All the unions, except four Unions had availed of the facility by producing written authorisation from their members for the purpose of deducting the membership subscription from the member’s salary. On the basis of such authorisation list, the strength of the unions was arrived at. The Tuticorin Port Mariners and General Staff Union (HMS) could get 491 authorisation forms. The petitioner union could get 432 authorisation forms. The 4th respondent union could give only 371 authorisation lists. The above strength of the unions was as on 26. 1998. Admittedly, though authorisation forms were given, no subscription amount was deducted for 1998. Thereafter, the unions furnished revocation forms and authorisation forms so as to enable the 2nd respondent-port trust to deduct the subscription amount for 1999 from their salary and to pay the same to the union to which the member has now joined. The 4th respondent- union has submitted such forms on 30.9.1998 with respect to 126 employees. 35 of such forms had been given by the members of the petitioner-union in favour of the 4th respondent. The petitioner-union also gave such revised authorisation forms on 112. 1998. On the basis of the authorisation forms given for the purpose of deducting the subscription for 1999, the 4th respondent-union gained more strength, by that, it moved to second place pushing down the petitioner-union to the third place. On the basis of the said strength, the 2nd respondent-port trust informed the same to the 1st respondent Central government. 1998. On the basis of the authorisation forms given for the purpose of deducting the subscription for 1999, the 4th respondent-union gained more strength, by that, it moved to second place pushing down the petitioner-union to the third place. On the basis of the said strength, the 2nd respondent-port trust informed the same to the 1st respondent Central government. Since the 2nd respondent- port trust has acted on the revised authorisation forms given by the 4th respondent-Union on 30.9.1998, the petitioner union has come forward with the above writ petition, as if the strength can be ascertained only by way of secret balloting. I am not able to accept the case of the petitioner-Union. 7. Either check-off system or secret ballotting is being followed in order to have proper representation on behalf of the majority workers, and to avoid the representation of a union which represent the minority workers which cannot represent the real grievance of the workers. In this case, the 1st respondent is having a scheme for check-off system, which was introduced in the 2nd respondent-port trust only after consultation of all Unions, and the same has also been acted upon. Only because the petitioner-union has been pushed down by the 4th respondent-union to the third place, the petitioner-union has now come forward with the above writ petition. If any irregularities in following the check-off system, the same can be putforth by the petitioner, and, merely because it has not been properly followed, it cannot be said that the said system itself is bad. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the decision in F.C.O.I.S.U. v. F.C.O.I. & Ors. , 1995 (2) LLJ272, in support of his submission that the check-off system cannot be accepted as a recognised system. In the said decision the Apex Court has held as follows:- “But when in an establishment, be it an industry or an undertaking, there are more than one registered trade unions, the question as to with whom the employer should negotiate or enter into bargaining assumes importance, because if the trade union claiming this right be one which has its members minority of the workmen/employees, the settlement, even if any arrived between the employers and such a union, may not be acceptable to the majority and may not result in industrial peace. In such a situation with whom the employers should bargain, or to put it differently, who should be sole bargaining agent, has been a matter of discussion and some dispute. The “check off system” which once prevailed in this domain has lost its appeals; and so, efforts are on to find out which other system can foot the bill. The method of secret ballot is being gradually accepted. All concerned would, however, like to see that this method is so adopted and adjusted that it reflects the correct position as regards membership of the different trade unions operating in one and the same industry, establishment or undertaking” But the secret ballotting system was put into effect in the said case on the basis of the agreed order. In the present case it cannot be said that the check off system cannot be worked out and it will not serve the purpose. 8. In A. Veeriah Thevar v. Commissioner for Excise and Prohibition , AIR 1995 Mad.288, the Division Bench of this court has held as follows:- “In the first place, it is not open to the appellant to challenge the validity of the rules. The appellant was fully aware of the rules when he took part in the auction. The auction was held only under the rules. Once he has taken part in the auction and has also succeeded there, it is not open to him to contest the validity of the rules” In the present case, as the petitioner-union had participated and consented for the implementation of the check-off system, it cannot challenge the said system, as it should not be allowed to be in effect, and some other system should be introduced. So, the abovesaid decision reported in F.C.O.I.S.U Vs. F.C.O.I & others, 1995 (2) LLJ272 would not apply to the facts of the present case. In this case the only reason that has been stated by the petitioner is that the check-off system is not properly followed. As stated earlier and as held in various judgments of the Apex Court and this court, merely because the said system is not properly implemented, it cannot be said that the said system itself is bad. 9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, relying on the proceedings of the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, dated 12. As stated earlier and as held in various judgments of the Apex Court and this court, merely because the said system is not properly implemented, it cannot be said that the said system itself is bad. 9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, relying on the proceedings of the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, dated 12. 1999 has submitted that secret ballotting system has been introduced in the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Mumbai. Merely because such system has been introduced in Mumbai, it cannot be said that the same should be introduced in the 2nd respondent- port trust also, when the parties had consented to have check-off system. Moreover, no material is available before this court as to under what circumstances the said system has been introduced in the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Mumbai. .10. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on para 3 of the specimen of the authorisation form, has submitted that the authorisation forms given by the 4th respondent-union on 30.9.1998 should not have been entertained by the 2nd respondent port trust. Para 3 of the said form is as follows:- .“In case I resign from the membership of the union or otherwise cease to be a member of the union, I shall give in writing a notice of three months in advance to that effect and then only this authority letter be treated as cancelled and non- effective for the subsequent new years after the expiry of a period of three months of such notice. In the event of my discontinuing the membership during the currency of the year, I shall not ask for a refund of the amount already deducted through the pay sheet” . Though in the writ petition the only issue that arises for consideration is whether the request of the petitioner for secret ballotting in order to know the strength of the union, has to be allowed or not, since the learned senior counsel has raised the issue about entertaining the authorisation forms, I have to discuss the said issue also. .11. The authorisation letter once given shall remain valid till it is revoked by the worker by giving in writing three months notice in advance. .11. The authorisation letter once given shall remain valid till it is revoked by the worker by giving in writing three months notice in advance. Though it is stated that in the 2nd respondent-port trust where the check-off system was going to be introduced by recovery of subscription through salary bill for June 1998, the same had not been recovered. Each Port Trust shall send details as per the proforma and Annexure, to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, by 1st February of every year, which should be based on the recoveries made in the month of January of every year. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner relying on para 3 of the said Annexure-I (specimen authorisation form) has further submitted that the subsequent revocation and consequential authorisation forms cannot be given effect to for the subsequent year. I am not able to accept the said submission of the learned senior counsel. The cumulative effect of reading of the said scheme and the said authorisation form in Annexure-I, it has to be understood that the workers can give in writing a notice of three months in advance about the revocation, and the authorised letter for deduction of subscription towards the membership of the present union in which the worker has joined subsequently. The previous authorisation letter shall be treated as cancelled and non-effective on expiry of the period of three months for the subsequent period of that year. The words “subsequent new years” do not give any meaning and have not been properly worded. So, it should be read as “non-effective for the subsequent period of that year”. In the present case, the 4th respondent-union h as given revocation forms and the revised authorisation forms of 126 members on 30.9.1998, out of which 35 members from the petitioners -union had changed their loyalty. So, the said authorisation forms would come into effect on and from 30.12.1998. On that basis the 2nd respondent-port trust has calculated the strength of the Unions as on 1. 1999 for the year 1999 on the basis of the revised authorisation forms which were given three months earlier. So, the 4th respondent gained more strength than the petitioner. Though the petitioner gave revised authorisation forms on 112. 1998, they cannot be taken into consideration to find out the strength for 1999 as three months period had not expired as on 1. 1999. 12. So, the 4th respondent gained more strength than the petitioner. Though the petitioner gave revised authorisation forms on 112. 1998, they cannot be taken into consideration to find out the strength for 1999 as three months period had not expired as on 1. 1999. 12. Further, it is relevant to mention here that sufficient safeguards have been made in the said scheme to vouch the correctness of the authorisation forms given by various Unions. Whenever there is a change of loyalty by the workers by giving fresh authorisation forms, provision is made to inform the concerned Union about the same. If any irregularity is committed in this regard, the concerned Union can always verify the same and put forth their case before the Port Trust, and the Port Trust is having right to accept the same or not. 13. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the writ petition. Accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.M.P.Nos. 3218 and 7807 of 1999 are closed.