PRADIPTA RAY, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ application the Paradeep phosphates Employees' Union (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-union) has challenged the arrangement of postal ballots for those employees of the Paradeep Phosphates ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company)posted and working outside the State of Orissa for casting their votes for the purpose of verification of membership and recognition of trade unions. According to the writ-petitioner, the Rules for Verification of Membership and recognition of Trade Unions Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Verification rules) do not envisage and permit casting of votes through postal ballot. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was last recognised as a trade Union on March 6, 1995 for two years, which expired on March 5, 1997. The petitioner-union moved the Labour commissioner-cum-State implementation and evaluation Officer (Opposite Party No. 2) for taking steps for verification of the membership of the trade-unions for fresh recognition. The district Labour Officer, Jagatsinghpur (Opposite Party No. 1) was appointed as returning Officer for the purpose of verification of membership of the trade unions through secret ballot system. By an order dated may 15, 1997, the Returning Officer introduced a new arrangement for casting votes through postal ballot for the employees who have been posted and working outside the State of Orissa. Under the impugned arrangement the employees of the Company posted outside the State of Orissa were to make a written request to the Returning Officer for permitting them to participate in the ballot through post. The employees who opted for postal ballot themselves were to send the ballot papers received by them by registered post with acknowledgement Due. ( 3 ) THE question to be decided in the present case is whether Rule 12 of the verification Rules permits the system of postal ballot or not. The relevant, Rule 12 of verification Rules is reproduced below:"12. System of Polling and counting of ballots (a) Where employees of the Industry are posted at offices situated in different- places, the Returning Officer wherever possible may conduct ballot on the same day and for that purpose he may appoint more than one polling officer: provided that if it is not possible to organise polling on the same day at various offices of the Industry situated away from the main polling centre, separate arrangements or ballot may be made. (B) The ballot shall be conducted preferably on a working day inside the premises of the industry. (C) After the ballot boxes shall be sealed with the seals of the Returning Officer, the unions and the employer. (D) The ballot shall be held and votes shall be counted at the dates, places and time to be notified by the Returning Officer. (E) The employer and the unions may appoint one agent each to witness the ballot and the counting. " ( 4 ) SRI Nanda, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner-union has submitted that if the provisions of Rule 12 are carefully read, it will definitely show that Rule 12 does not at all contemplate casting of vote through postal ballot. ( 5 ) SRI Jagannath Pattnaik, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party No. 4 has referred to Rule 12 to submit that the returning Officer has the authority to make "separate arrangement for ballot" and that ballot includes a postal ballot also. He has referred to BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY to submit that the word "ballot" has a wider connotation than voting in ballot boxes. ( 6 ) BALLOT may include postal ballot if the rules or procedures governing system of polling and counting of votes permit ballot by post. It will appear from Rule 12 that no procedure and/or arrangement for postal ballot has been provided for. Rules 12 (b) to 12 (e)clearly indicate that no postal ballot is contemplated therein. If separate arrangement included introduction of postal ballot then the rules would have provided for some kind of manner or method for receiving, casting and counting of postal ballots. Rules 12 (b) to 12 (e)clearly indicate that only system contemplated is ballot through ballot boxes. There is no whisper how the postal ballot would be sent and how these will be collected. ( 7 ) THE postal ballot is also a recognised system of casting vote under the secret ballot system. But where there are statutes or rules governing procedure and method of casting votes such statute or rule must provide for a particular system of casting votes. Reference may be made to the provisions of representation of Peoples Act for guidance in this regard. A special section being Section 60 has been incorporated under the Representation of Peoples Act enabling a specified section of the voters to vote by postal ballot. Reference may be made to the provisions of representation of Peoples Act for guidance in this regard. A special section being Section 60 has been incorporated under the Representation of Peoples Act enabling a specified section of the voters to vote by postal ballot. The position in this regard has been clarified by Supreme court in A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai and others, air 1984 SC 921 : 1984 (2) SCC 656 . It has been observed therein:" (A) When there is no Parliamentary legislation or rule made under the said legislation, the Commission is free to pass any orders in respect of the conduct of elections. (B) Where there is an Act and express Rules made thereunder, it is not open to the commission to override the Act or the Rules and pass orders in direct disobedience to the man date contained in the Act or the Rules. In other words, the powers of the commission are meant to supplement rather than supplant the law (both statute and rules) in the matter/ of superintendence, direction and control/as provided by Article 324. "in A. C Jose v. Sivan Pillai, the Supreme court was considering the permissibility of voting by voting machine in the general elections. To find out such permissibility the supreme Court referred to the rules framed under the Representation of the Peoples Act to examine whether use of voting machine would be consistent with the rules or not. Supreme court ultimately held that use of voting machine was not permissible as the said system did not fit into the scheme of voting as prescribed under the rules. ( 8 ) IN the present case the Rules 12 (b) to (e) of the Verification Rules lay down a scheme of voting with which postal ballot is not consistent. If the Verification Rules contemplated postal ballot it would not have provided for appointment of more than one polling Officer where employees of the industries are posted at offices situated in different places. The expression "ballot" may have a wider connotation, but the Verification rules do not envisage voting by postal ballot. ( 9 ) SRI Pattnaik has referred to Rule 28 of the Verification Rules and submitted that the petitioner should have first approached the state Implementation and Evaluation committee before filing this writ petition. The said submission cannot be accepted. The expression "ballot" may have a wider connotation, but the Verification rules do not envisage voting by postal ballot. ( 9 ) SRI Pattnaik has referred to Rule 28 of the Verification Rules and submitted that the petitioner should have first approached the state Implementation and Evaluation committee before filing this writ petition. The said submission cannot be accepted. The dispute raised in this writ petition does not relate to doubts and defects but concerns the power and authority of the Returning Officer to introduce the system of postal ballot. Assuming that Rule 28 provides for an alternative forum it is well settled that any dispute regarding jurisdiction or authority can be raised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy. Moreover, alternative remedy is not absolute bar to the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain applications under article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 10 ) IN support of its challenge to the introduction of postal ballot, the writ petitioner has expressed apprehension that all the postal ballot papers can be collected by one person and used by him to serve his particular interest. There is nothing on record to show that any postal ballot was misled or misutilised by any person. No employee, who has used postal ballot has made any complaint that he could not send the postal ballot himself or he was not allowed to exercise his right freely and independently. Accordingly, it is not permissible for this Court to accept any such apprehension as expressed by the petitioner union. ( 11 ) THE election was held on December 30, 1997. In the meantime more than 3 years have passed. It is thus necessary to hold fresh polling for the purpose of verification of the membership of the union for granting recognition. The concerned opposite parties are to initiate the process for fresh verification of the membership of the union in accordance with the provisions of the Verification Rules as interpreted in this judgment. ( 12 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the impugned order of the Returning Officer, dated december 15, 1997, making special arrangement for voting by postal ballot is quashed and set aside. It is clear that the voting by postal ballot in the verification conducted in december 1997 was not permissible in law. ( 12 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the impugned order of the Returning Officer, dated december 15, 1997, making special arrangement for voting by postal ballot is quashed and set aside. It is clear that the voting by postal ballot in the verification conducted in december 1997 was not permissible in law. The opposite parties are directed to initiate a fresh process for verification of the membership of the registered trade unions in accordance with the provisions of the Rules for verification of membership and Recognition of trade Unions Rules, 1994, as interpreted in this judgment. The writ petition is thus allowed.