ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. THE APPEAL BY SPECIAL LEAVE HAS BEEN FILED BY ONE OF THE UNIONS WHOSE MEMBERS ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE RESPONDENT PORT TRUST. THE APPELLANT HAD FILED A WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, INTER ALIA, CHALLENGING THE METHOD OF CHOOSING A REPRESENTATIVE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PORT TRUST. ACCORDING TO THE PRESENT RULES, THE EMPLOYEES ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE TWO REPRESENTATIVES ON THE BOARD. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IN ITS WRIT PETITION WAS THAT THE METHOD OF SELECTION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD BE BY SECRET BALLOT AND NOT BY THE "CHECK-OFF SYSTEM WHICH HAD BEEN FOLLOWED FROM 1998. RESPONDENT 4 IS A RIVAL TRADE UNION AND OPPOSED THE PRAYER OF THE WRIT PETITIONER. THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, HOWEVER, ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITION AND DIRECTED THAT THE EMPLOYEES REPRESENTATIVES TO THE BOARD OF THE PORT TRUST WERE TO BE CHOSEN BY SECRET BALLOT. RESPONDENT 4 FILED AN APPEAL. AN INTERIM ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ELECTION OF THE TWO REPRESENTATIVES COULD TAKE PLACE IN ANY MANNER OTHERWISE THAN BY SECRET BALLOT. IMPUGNING THIS INTERIM ORDER, THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. WE HAD STAYED THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PORT TRUST HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PORT TRUST HAD TO HAVE TWO REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE EMPLOYEES ON ITS BOARD. ALTHOUGH IT WAS OPERATING WITH A QUORUM AS PROVIDED UNDER THE MAJOR PORT TRUSTS ACT, NEVERTHELESS IT WAS DESIRABLE THAT THE EMPLOYEES VIEWPOINTS WERE EXPRESSED AT THE BOARD MEETINGS. IN VIEW OF THE DEADLOCK BETWEEN THE TWO UNIONS AND WITH THE CONSENT OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT AND THE RESPONDENT UNION, THE INTERIM ORDER OF STAY WHICH HAD BEEN GRANTED BY THIS COURT IS MODIFIED TO THE EXTENT THAT NO EMPLOYEES REPRESENTATIVE WILL, AT PRESENT, BE SELECTED FOR REPRESENTING THE EMPLOYEES ON THE BOARD OF THE PORT TRUST. THE PORT TRUST MAY CONTINUE TO OPERATE ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SUBJECT TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE PRESCRIBED QUORUM. THIS INTERIM ORDER WILL CONTINUE UNTIL THE DISPOSAL OF THE WRIT APPEAL. THE HIGH COURT IS REQUESTED TO DISPOSE OF THE WRIT APPEAL AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS IS CONVENIENTLY C POSSIBLE. 4. THE CIVIL APPEAL STANDS DISPOSED OF IN THE AFORESAID TERMS.