Judgment : 1. The petitioner-union has filed this writ petition, to quash the nomination of the member or the third respondent as labour representative in the Board of Trustees or the Chennai Port Trust as notified in the proceedings dated 24.5.2000 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to nominate Mr. V.K. Balakrishnan representing the petitioner as the labour representative in the Board of Trustees of the Chennai Port Trust. 2. The Board of Trustees for the Port Trust has to be constituted by the Central Government once in two years as contemplated under Section 3 of Chapter 11 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. Two representatives of the Labour Union have to be nominated to the Board of Trustees to represent the interest of the labourers employed in the Port Trust under Section 3 (1) (c) (i) of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. The representative of the employees is selected on the basis of the recommendation of the Union having majority of members. To find out the Union having majority of members, the 1st respondent-Government issued instructions for the Port Trusts and Dock Labour Boards to the effect that the result of check-off scheme will be basis for determination of the membership of the Union which will be taken into account for deciding the Union having majority or members. 3. The Chennai Port Trust Board was reconstituted with effect from 1.4.2000. The registered trade unions representing the labour for the Chennai Port Trust were requested by the Port Trust to furnish the names of two representatives in order of their preference whom they considered preferable for appointment as trustees. The trade unions including the petitioner-union, furnished the said information which was sent to the 1st respondent-Government for necessary action, and the 1st respondent after considering the same appointed two labour trustees of Chennai Port Trust Board by their notification dated 24.5.2000. The said notification is being challenged in this writ petition. 4. The 1st respondent-Government approved the representatives suggested by Madras Port Trust Employees Union and Madras Port Trust United Labour Union for the purpose of appointment as trustees of the Madras Port Trust Board. The petitioner is not having any grievance with reference to the representative suggested by Madras Port Trust Employees Union, as the said Union, admittedly, is having more strength than all other Unions. The petitioner is not having any grievance with reference to the representative suggested by Madras Port Trust Employees Union, as the said Union, admittedly, is having more strength than all other Unions. The only dispute raised by the petitioner in this case is that the petitioner-union is having more members than the 3rd respondent-union and so the representative of the petitioner-union should have been appointed as trustee without accepting the recommendation of the 3rd respondent-union, as the 3rd respondent is having lesser strength than the petitioner. 5. According to the petitioner, as stated in the affidavit, the petitioner is having a strength of 2,924 which includes 32 ODT Drivers and 162 Traffic Supervisory Staff. The 3rd respondent is having a strength of 2,715 members. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on the counter filed by the Chairman, Chennai Port Trust, the 2nd respondent, has submitted that even according to the 2nd respondent the number of members of the petitioner-union was calculated as 2,730 with an indica tion that it includes 33 Rank Casuals, and the same was communicated to the Government, and the Government have not properly considered the strength and mistook the strength as if it is lesser than that of the 3rd respondent. The learned Senior Counsel proceeded with the case mainly on the basis of the strength mentioned in the counter. So I am not going into the strength as mentioned in the petitioner’s affidavit. 6. Mr. Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has submitted that as per the check-off system in respect of Major Port Trust and Dock Labour Board, the casual employees are not entitled to claim any right. The learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the 1st respondent, and Mr. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent have also supported the said argument. 7. The only issue to be decided in this case is whether the strength of the rank casuals has to be taken as members of the petitioner-union for the purpose of the scheme, and also whether they can be added for assessing the strength of the petitioner. 8. It is not in dispute that the strength of the 3rd respondent is 2,715. The petitioner claims that its strength is 2,730, but, admittedly, it includes 33 rank casuals. 8. It is not in dispute that the strength of the 3rd respondent is 2,715. The petitioner claims that its strength is 2,730, but, admittedly, it includes 33 rank casuals. If the said rank casuals are not eligible to be included to decide the strength, then there cannot be any difficulty to arrive at the conclusion that the 3rd respondent is having more strength than the petitioner, and so the 1st respondent is justified in issuing the impugned notification, accepting the representation of the 3rd respondent. 9. To decide the said issue, it is necessary to deal with the scheme for check-off system. Clause 2 or the scheme deals with the eligibility for check-off system which reads as follows— “All Class III and Class IV employees and workers or the major Port Trusts and Dock Labour Boards, who are paid out or the funds of Port Trusts/Dock Labour Boards shall be eligible. Also the workers mentioned in the subsidiary list maintained by Paradip Port and lists of casuals maintained by Kandia Port will be eligible.” From the abovesaid clause 2 of the check-off system, it is clear that the casuals cannot be generally eligible to avail the check-off system and they cannot come under the scheme. In the abovesaid clause, only the casuals maintained by Kandia Port are eligible to come under the said scheme. When such an eligibility has been given only to that Port specifically, it has to be taken that for other Ports the casuals are not eligible to come under the check-off system. Even with respect to schedule of members as on 1.4.2000 maintained by the-2nd respondent-Port Trust, I do not find that the casuals are treated as employees of the Port Trust. So the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the casuals are eligible to come under the, check-off system, and they have to be treated as workers of the Port Trust cannot be accepted. From a reading of the eligibility clause as mentioned in the scheme, it is very clear that generally, the casuals are not eligible to avail the said scheme. As rightly submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the 1st respondent, the said eligibility is not under challenge. So, merely because the casuals are being paid from the funds of the Port, Trust, they cannot claim any right under the said scheme. 10. As rightly submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the 1st respondent, the said eligibility is not under challenge. So, merely because the casuals are being paid from the funds of the Port, Trust, they cannot claim any right under the said scheme. 10. The 1st respondent-Government considering the said aspect of the matter, has taken the decision that casuals cannot be taken as workers of the 2nd respondent-Port Trust, and they cannot be added with the strength of the petitioner-union for the purpose of calculating the total strength of the petitioner. I do not find any irregularity in taking such a decision, in view of the abovesaid eligibility clause incorporated by the 1st respondent-Government for availing the check-off system. 11. For all the reasons stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned notification of the 1st respondent-Government, issued on the basis that the 3rd respondent is having more strength than the petitioner, and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. The connected W.M.Ps. are also dismissed.