JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — Ispat Labour Union, Rourkela, a regis¬tered Trade Union, has filed W.P. (C) No.2465 of 2003 challenging the notice dated 3.3.2003 in Annexure-4 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Returning Officer, Rourkela issuing a notice in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-rule(2) of Rule 11 of the Verification of Membership and Recognition of Trade Unions Rules, 1994 (hereinafter called as ‘the Rules’) indicating therein that voting through Secret Ballot for the purpose of verification of membership of trade unions functioning in Rourkela Steel Plant was scheduled to be held on 21.3.2003. The Steel Employees Association, Rourkela, another registered trade Union, has filed W.P. (C) No.6294 of 2003 for the self-same relief. So far as W.P. (C) No.5140 of 2003 is concerned, same has been filed by the Secretary of Rourkela Shramik Sangh praying for issuance of a direction to allow the Union i.e. petitioner No.2 to continue with recognition in accor¬dance with the provisions contained in Rule 23(2) of the afore¬said Rules and discharge their rights and responsibilities as per Rules 21 and 22 of the Rules until the result of the fresh veri¬fication is declared and recognition status decided by the State Implementation and Evaluation Officer is done. 2. For convenience we have decided to first take up W.P. (C) Nos. 2465 and 6294 of 2003. From the record it appear that by office order dated 5.2.2003 the State Implementation and Evalua¬tion Officer-cum-Labour Commissioner, Orissa passed an order to conduct verification of membership of 12 eligible registered trade Unions operating in Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela through secret ballot for the purpose of determining the Trade Union, commanding majority following, for the purpose of grant of recog¬nition by the employer. By letter dated 13.2.2003 the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Returning Officer, Rourkela intimated all the 12 Trade Unions functioning in Rourkela Steel Plant to dis¬play in the notice board for general information the list of employees with their names and particulars employed in Rourkela Steel Plant as on 5.2.2003 and also invited objections/sugges¬tion, if any, from the Unions to be filed on behalf of the Unions to finalise list of voters. From the notice dated 27.2.2003 it appears that after receipt of objections, eight names were added to the list. From the notice dated 27.2.2003 it appears that after receipt of objections, eight names were added to the list. After preparation of voter list, the impugned notice dated 3.3.2003 was issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Returning Officer, Rourkela in exercise of powers under Rule 11(2) of the Rules. It also appears that after the said notice was issued most of the Unions suggested deletion of names of 279 workers from the final voter list as they were no more workers in the establishment of the employer. On the basis of such objection/suggestion, another notice was issued by the Asst. Labour Commissioner and Returning Officer on 4.3.2003 inti¬mating that names of 279 employees who are already superannuated, voluntarily retired or otherwise separated shall stand deleted from the final list of eligible workmen to participate in the secret ballot voting. After this notice was issued, W.P. (C) No.2465 of 2003 was filed and this Court by interim order dated 20.3.2003 directed counting of votes to be held, but restrained publication of the result without leave of the Court. 3. Learned Senior Advocates Sri B. Pal and Sri Ashok Mohanty appearing on behalf of petitioners in both the cases respectively challenge the notice dated 3.3.2003 on the following grounds : (1) Under Rule 11 of the Verification of Membership and Recognition of Trade Union Rules, 1994 so long as final list of eligible workmen to participate in secret ballot voting is not placed in the notice Board with a copy to the employer and the Unions at least 15 days before the date of ballot, verification could not have been done. This argument is based on the ground that the notice issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Returning Officer dated 4.3.2003 indicates non-finalisation of list of eligible workmen to participate in the secret ballot voting. (2) In the application to be filed by the Unions for regis¬tration as recognized Union in Form-A a declaration is to be made by the Union stating that applicant-Union has not instigated and/or assisted commencement or continuation of a strike among employees in the undertaking for which the applicant-Unions seeks recognition which is deemed to be illegal under the Industrial Disputes Act within six months immediately preceding the date of filing of application in the aforesaid form. Relying on this provision it was contended that on the date the application was filed by the Rourkela Shramik Sangh, the members of the said Union had resorted to strike but false undertaking was given as required in Clause 8 of Form-A. (3) Relying on Rule 12 of the aforesaid Rules, it was also contended that no arrangement was made for employees of Rourkela Steel Plant posted at offices situated in different places and as a result of which they were deberred from casting votes. 4. Shri G. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Rourke¬la Shramik Sangh and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing in behalf of the Asst Labour Commissioner-cum-Returning Officer submitted that final voter list had already been prepared after inviting objection vide notice dated 27.2.2003. Only after preparation of final voter list the impugned notice dated 3.3.2003 was issued. On the request/suggestion of most of the Unions, 279 workers who had superannuated or voluntarily retired or otherwise separated were deleted from the list by notice dated 4.3.2003. The notice dated 4.3.2003 having been passed pursuant to suggestion given by most of the Unions and the Asst Labour Commissioner having passed the order to delete those 279 workers from the list of eligible workmen, the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are only technical and does not affect election in any way. It was also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the State as well as Rourkela Shramik Sangh that when the result of the election is not materi¬ally affected by any change made in the voter list, the Court should not take cognizance of the same as no prejudice is caused to any party and merely on the technical ground, the Court should refrain from interfering with the election. It was also contended by Sri G. Rath that Rourkela Shramik Sangh got majority number of votes where as all other Unions combined together have got less votes than the Rourkela Shramik Sangh. None of the counsel ap¬pearing for the parties disputed this position. So far as com¬pliance of Rule 12 is concerned, it was contended that elaborate arrangements were made in Rourkela itself for facilitating out¬side voters to cast their votes and therefore it cannot be said that Rule 12 had not been complied with. 5. None of the counsel ap¬pearing for the parties disputed this position. So far as com¬pliance of Rule 12 is concerned, it was contended that elaborate arrangements were made in Rourkela itself for facilitating out¬side voters to cast their votes and therefore it cannot be said that Rule 12 had not been complied with. 5. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we feel it necessary to refer Rule 11 of the Rules. For convenience, said Rule is quoted below : “(1) In case of multiplicity of unions in an industry, where applications in Form ‘A’ in case of unions and Form ‘B’ in case of employers prescribed under these Rules in triplicate along with prescribed fees have been received by the State implementa¬tion and Evaluation Officer from any of the unions or the employ¬er and after preliminary enquiry if the union is found to be fulfilling the criteria for recognition, he shall - (a) order for verification of union membership through secret ballot; (b) appoint the Returning Officer, and (c) forward a copy of the orders to the employer, the unions(s) concerned and the Returning Officer. (2) The Returning Officer on receipt of the order and within a period of 30 days shall notify the date, place and time of voting by secret ballot with copy to all concerned, and shall appoint the observers. (3) (a) The Returning Officer shall collect the names and particulars of employees working in the industry/Estts. and shall display the same in the notice boards of the employer, unions and also forward copies to all unions inviting objections/suggestions within a period of not less than ten days. (b) The final list of eligible workmen to participate in secret ballot voting shall be placed in the notice boards with copy to the employer and the unions at lest 15 days before the date of ballot. Only grievance is that before publication of final list as provided under Rule 11(3)(b), the impugned notice could not have been issued. From the record as stated earlier, we find that final voter list of eligible workmen had been published vide notice dated 27.2.2003. Only after finalization of voter list, impugned notice dated 3.3.2003 was issued. However, on sugges¬tions of the most of the Unions names of 279 workers who had been retired, superannuated or otherwise separated were deleted from final voter list. Only after finalization of voter list, impugned notice dated 3.3.2003 was issued. However, on sugges¬tions of the most of the Unions names of 279 workers who had been retired, superannuated or otherwise separated were deleted from final voter list. Basing on this, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since notice dated 4.3.2003 indicates that final voter list had not been prepared, there was no scope for issuing election notice on 3.3.2003. We are unable to accept such contention as final voter list had already been prepared on 27.2.2003 and instead of publication of a fresh final voter list, the Asst Labour Commissioner vide notice dated 4.3.2003 deleted names of 279 workers from the final voter list, which has not materially affected the parties in any way. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the Rourkela Shramik Sangh that even if 279 workers would have cast their voters in favour of other Unions, still then it would have made no effect so far as result of verification is concerned. We, therefore, do not find any force in such contention. So far as second point of the learned counsel for the peti¬tioners is concerned, true it is that under Clause 8 of Forum-A the Union has to give a declaration that it has not instigated, aided or assisted commencement or continuation of strike among employees in the Undertaking for which the Union seeks recogni¬tion which is deemed to be illegal under the Industrial Disputes Act within six months immediately preceding date of filing appli¬cation in the said Form-A. There is no material before us to show that within six months preceding date of filing application in Form-A the Union, i.e. Rourkela Shramik Sangh had instigated, aided or assisted commencement or continuation of strike among employees. Only material placed before the Court is that on the date the application in Form-A was submitted, members of the Rourkela Shramik Sangh were on strike. There is no materi¬al before us to show as to whether strike was called after filing of the application in Form-A or before. In absence of any such material, it is difficult for us to hold that the declaration given by the Rourkela Shramik Sangh in Form-A was false. We, therefore, do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In absence of any such material, it is difficult for us to hold that the declaration given by the Rourkela Shramik Sangh in Form-A was false. We, therefore, do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. So far as third point is concerned, from the record it appears that arrangements were made for the employees of the industry who are posted at offices at different places. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the decision of this Court arrangements should have been made by the Returning Officer in respect of the workers posted at offices at different places and not at Rourkela. Such number of employees will not exceed 100 or 120. Even if these 120 employees cast their votes in favour of other Unions, it will not make any difference so far as result of the election is concerned. We are taking this view since we find that margin by which Rourkela Shramik Sangh has succeeded comes to near about one thousand votes. We are, therefore, unable to accept such contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, which is based on technical ground without affecting result of election at all and therefore we do not find any merit in both the writ applications. 6. So far as W.P. (C) No.5140 of 2003 is concerned, since other two writ applications are dismissed, there is no reason to entertain this writ application on merits. After disposal of the aforesaid two writ applications, steps shall be taken by the competent authorities in accordance with Rules for the purpose of recognition of Unions. 7. Accordingly, W.P. (C) Nos. 2465 and 6294 of 2003 stand dismissed and W.P. (C) No.5140 of 2003 stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation. SUJIT BARMAN ROY, C.J. I agree. Two petitions dismissed, one disposed of.