Judgment :- The Honourable Chief Justice: These two writ appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 19.04.2005 in W.P.Nos. 37435 of 2004 and 1092 of 2005. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. In W.P.No. 37435 of 2004, the prayer of the petitioner was for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent/ the Chairman and Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited in his Ref.No. BSNL/5/SR/2004/Vol II (i) dated 06.12.2004, and to quash the same and further direct the first respondent to recognize the petitioner Union for a further period of two years. 4. In W.P.No. 1092 of 2005, the petitioner has prayed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in his Ref.No.BSNL/39-3/SR/2004 dated 07.01.2005 and to quash the same, and further direct the first respondent to nominate members to the staff side of the Newly Constituted National Council from the petitioner union. 5. By the common order dated 19.04.2005, the learned single Judge has dismissed both the writ petitions, and hence these writ appeals. 6. In Writ Petition No. 37435 of 2004, it is alleged in paragraph 2 of the petitioner’s affidavit that the petitioner Union was recognised by the first respondent for a period of two years from 04.10.2002 to 03.10.2004, and a notification in this respect was published on 04.10.2004. In pursuance of the said notification, 11 Unions contested/participated for the second verification which was held on 01.12.2004. Each Union which contested in the said election had to canvass for their union and the first respondent had to take into consideration the number of votes polled individually and not collectively. 7. By the impugned orders the first respondent declared the third respondent/BSNL Employees Union as the majority representative Union for a period of two years from the date of the notification. 8. According to the petitioner Union, this declaration is void because five unions namely, AIBCTES, BSNLEU, BSNLWRU, NUBSNLW (FNTO) and TEPU had issued a joint circular appealing to their members to vote for the third respondent without withdrawing from the contest for election of the representative Union by secret ballot. It is alleged that this practice was unfair and unethical. 9. According to the petitioner Union, this declaration is void because five unions namely, AIBCTES, BSNLEU, BSNLWRU, NUBSNLW (FNTO) and TEPU had issued a joint circular appealing to their members to vote for the third respondent without withdrawing from the contest for election of the representative Union by secret ballot. It is alleged that this practice was unfair and unethical. 9. It is alleged in paragraph 4 of the petitioner’s affidavit that the second verification on Union membership was conducted by the first respondent only to find out which Union among all the contesting Unions command majority support among the non-executive employees of BSNL throughout the Country. Hence it is alleged that polling votes in this fashion by combination of five Unions is illegal and goes against the code of conduct accepted by all the Unions. Hence detailed representations were submitted to the second respondent on 21.10.2004 and 27.10.2004, but to no avail. 10. In paragraph-5 of the petitioners affidavit it is alleged that a communication from the management of BSNL had been sent to the General Secretaries of the participating Unions on 25.11.2004 stating: - “ It is further clarified that the formation of any alliance/consortium will not confer any right to its member unions for grant of recognised representative status and facilities which are meant only for majority union in whatsoever manner” It is alleged that the above statement indicates that the formation of alliance/consortium of a few Unions and taking into account the votes polled by them will not be recognised. It is alleged that the purpose of the second verification is only to find out which union among all contesting Unions command majority support among the non-executive employees of BSNL. Hence combination of Unions and majority after such combination of Unions cannot be taken into account at all. 11. It is alleged in paragraph 6 of the petitioners affidavit that the petitioner Union secured 1,00,226 votes, whereas the third respondent, which is the leader of the said alliance of five unions, secured 1,39,827 votes for its election symbol. It is alleged that the votes cast for the third respondent were not the votes cast for a single union, but for the five unions. Hence it is alleged that this cannot be taken as the votes for any single union. It is alleged that the votes cast for the third respondent were not the votes cast for a single union, but for the five unions. Hence it is alleged that this cannot be taken as the votes for any single union. It is alleged that the petitioner Union secured the largest percentage of votes and maximum support of employees, and hence it should be recognized by respondents 1 and 2. However, the first respondent by his communication dated 06.12.2004 has recognised the third respondent as the majority representative union for a period from 06.12.2004 to 05.12.2006. 12. In Writ Petition No. 1092 of 2005, the facts stated in W.P.No.37435 of 2004 have been reiterated. It is further alleged in paragraph 8 of the petitioner’s affidavit filed in support of W.P.No. 1092 of 2005 that in pursuance of the recognition granted by the second respondent to the third respondent as the majority union, the said union has nominated 13 persons to the staff side of the newly constituted National Council, whose names are mentioned in paragraph 8 of the affidavit. 13. It is alleged in paragraph 9 of the affidavit that the petitioner Union secured 1,00,226 votes (35.30%). It is alleged in paragraph 10 of the affidavit that even assuming that the BSNL Employees Union has been recognised as the majority union by the first respondent, only its members and office bearers alone can be nominated for the staff side of the newly constituted National Council. Nominating the other persons who belong to other unions is improper, besides being illegal. It is alleged that out of 13 persons who have been nominated to the staff side of the newly constituted National Council, only four are members/office bearers of the BSNL Employees Union. 14. Counter affidavits have been filed in both the writ petitions, and we have perused the same. 15. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.No.37435 of 2004, it is stated in paragraph 4 that the election was conducted on 01.12.2004 for electing a majority representative union of non-executive employees in BSNL and in the verification process 11 Unions of BSNL participated in the election. 15. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.No.37435 of 2004, it is stated in paragraph 4 that the election was conducted on 01.12.2004 for electing a majority representative union of non-executive employees in BSNL and in the verification process 11 Unions of BSNL participated in the election. It is alleged in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit that as per the schedule the election was conducted in a peaceful manner and as per the results declared by the Chief Returning Officer, the second respondent, vide order dated 06.12.2004, the third respondent/BSNL Employees Union was declared as the majority representative Union of Non-executive employees of BSNL for two years from the date of notification i.e., 06.12.2004 to 05.12.2006. It was further declared that the petitioner union i.e., NFTE BSNL on account of securing 50% or more votes in certain circles will also have the right to deal with matters of purely local interest of its members at the Circle/SSA level in these circles. 16. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit it is stated that in the polling the third respondent/Union secured 1,39,827 votes, while the petitioner Union secured 1,00,226 votes. The other Unions which participated secured only negligible votes. The third respondent Union having secured more votes in the secret ballot was declared as the majority representative union for a period of two years. It is alleged that the notification dated 06.12.2004 is neither illegal nor unlawful. The allegation that some Unions have jointly appealed to the employees to vote for the third respondent union is not an unfair and unethical practice and there is no violation of any code of conduct. The election was held in a free, fair and peaceful manner. 17. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit it is alleged that there is nothing under any law prohibiting any Union to issue appeal to its members to exercise their vote in favour of a particular election symbol of another union. 18. In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit the allegation in paragraph 5 of the petitioner’s affidavit have been specifically denied. It is stated therein that the election was conducted through secret ballot as per the procedure laid down by the Ministry of Labour. For the purpose of deciding the majority, the combined strength of votes of unions under a consortium were not taken into account. It is stated therein that the election was conducted through secret ballot as per the procedure laid down by the Ministry of Labour. For the purpose of deciding the majority, the combined strength of votes of unions under a consortium were not taken into account. Only symbol wise / Union wise polled votes were taken into account to find out which union among all the contesting Unions command majority support among the non-executive employees of BSNL. 19. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the third respondent. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit it is stated that on the very same ground that the petitioner has raised in this petition, the petitioner had won the elections in the year 2002 by forming an alliance with another Union viz., FNTO. The third respondent had challenged the said election of 2002 in the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P.No. 19832 of 2002. The petitioner Union was a party to the above proceedings and the interim order sought by BSNL Employees Union (petitioner before Andhra Pradesh High Court) was vacated on 05.01.2004 at the instance of the present writ petitioner Union (NFTE), and the writ appeal by BSNL Employees Union in W.A.No.527 of 2004 was rejected by the Andhra Pradesh High Court by order dated 05.04.2004. During the pendency of the case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the NFTE issued letters on 08.01.2003 and 31.01.2003 stating that it formed an alliance with another union namely, FNTO whose representative will also be nominated to the National and SSA Councils. The objection to the same was rejected by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. 20. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the letter dated 25.11.2004 issued by BSNL has been cited out of context by the petitioner. The letter nowhere prohibits any alliance. In fact the NFTE enjoyed representative status and operated with an alliance between 2002 and 2004. Hence it cannot blow hot and cold together. 21. We have also perused the counter affidavits filed in W.P.No.1092 of 2005. 22. On the facts of the case, we find no merit in these writ appeals. 23. The third respondent Union had secured 1,39,827 votes as against 1,00,226 votes secured by the petitioner Union. Hence the third respondent Union was rightly declared as the majority representative. 21. We have also perused the counter affidavits filed in W.P.No.1092 of 2005. 22. On the facts of the case, we find no merit in these writ appeals. 23. The third respondent Union had secured 1,39,827 votes as against 1,00,226 votes secured by the petitioner Union. Hence the third respondent Union was rightly declared as the majority representative. We agree with the respondents that the conduct of election was fair, and for the purpose of deciding the majority, the combined strength of the consortium was not taken into account, but only symbol wise polled votes. In fact in the year 2002 when the petitioner Union (NFTE) was successful it had formed an alliance with other Unions. Hence, we cannot see how it can approbate and reprobate at the same time. In fact before the Andhra Pradesh High Court the writ petitioner Union took a reverse stand to what it is taking now. Thus, it is blowing hot and cold together. 24. Respondents 1 and 2 have recognised only BSNL Employees Union as the majority representative union for two years and has not recognised the alliance/consortium members as a recognised Union. As clarified by the letter dated 25.11.2004, no rights were conferred to the member Unions of the alliance, and the Union facilities were also not extended to the other trade unions. 25. It appears that after losing in the election, the appellant/Union through its circle units have filed petitions seeking different relief in various High Courts e.g. Chattisgarh High Court, Jammu and Kashmir High Court, Delhi High Court, Madhya Pradesh High Court, Calcutta High Court and two petitions in Madras High Court. In our opinion, this is clearly a case of forum-shopping which was indulged by the appellant/Union. 26. In All India State Bank Officers Federation v. Union of India, 1990 (Supp.) SCC 336 the practice of simultaneous filing of writ petitions on the same issue though purportedly on behalf of different associations was emphatically disapproved by the Supreme Court. It may be submitted that the code of discipline relied on by the appellant is not a statutory code. The Trade Unions Act, 1926 does not provide for recognition of Trade Unions. Thus the order dated 06.12.2004 by which the second respondent was granted recognition was not a statutory order nor was the order dated 07.01.2005 reconstituting the National Council. 27. The Trade Unions Act, 1926 does not provide for recognition of Trade Unions. Thus the order dated 06.12.2004 by which the second respondent was granted recognition was not a statutory order nor was the order dated 07.01.2005 reconstituting the National Council. 27. In a similar case dealing with the recognition of the Trade Unions the Supreme Court in Chairman, State Bank of India v. Orissa State Bank of India Officer’s Association, 2003 (11) SCC 607, had held that it is not possible for the High Court to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the employer in the matter of representation of Unions. 28. Apart from the above, we are also of the opinion that the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner Union suppressed material facts by filing similar writ petitions in various other High Courts as stated above. It is well settled that writ is a discretionary remedy, and should not be issued in favour of persons who had suppressed material facts, vide All India State Bank Officers Federation v. Union of India (supra) 29. In view of the above, the writ appeals are dismissed with costs. Consequently, the interim order granted by this Court is vacated and the vacate stay petitions are closed.