JUDGMENT : S.C. Parija, J. - The Petitioner which is one of the registered trade unions operating in the Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. ("O.F.D.C." for short) has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order of Returning Officer-cum-Asst. Labour Commissioner (opposite party No. 3) dated 24.3.2007 and 4.7.2007 fixing the date for secret ballot for verification of membership of trade unions operating in the O.F.D.C. 2. The main allegation of the Petitioner is that the verification of membership of trade unions operating in O.F.D.C. through secret ballot has not been done in accordance with the provisions of Rules for Verification of Membership and Recognition of Trade Unions Rules, 1994 ('Rules' for short). The further allegation of the Petitioner in the writ petition is that the minutes of meeting dated 16.6.2007 (Annexure-6) with regard to location of booths and the place of counting of votes after the secret ballot have been finalized at the instance of the management of O.F.D.C. and representatives of some trade unions in which the Petitioner has not participated and therefore, such decision with regard to the modalities and process of conducting secret ballot for verification of membership of trade unions operating in O.F.D.C. is not proper and valid. Therefore, the entire process of holding secret ballot by opposite party No. 4, i.e., Returning Officer-cum-Asst. Labour Commissioner is vitiated. Accordingly, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the office order dated 24.03.2007 (Annexure-5) and office order dated 04.07.2007 (Annexure-7) and for a direction to opposite party No. 3 for holding the secret ballot after compliance of the' procedure laid down in the Rules. 3. The opposite parties 1 to 3 have filed counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that the State Implementation and Evaluation Officer-cum-Labour Commissioner, Orissa, (opposite party No. 2) issued office order dated 23.02.2007 (Annexure-B/3) wherein opposite party No. 3 was appointed to discharge the duties for verification of membership of trade unions operating in O.F.D.C. through secret ballot. Pursuant to the aforementioned office order, the opposite party No. 3 vide his letter dated 28.02.2007 (Annexure-D/3) directed the management of O.F.D.C. to furnish copies of certified list of employees on its role working at different parts of the State. Pursuant to the aforementioned office order, the opposite party No. 3 vide his letter dated 28.02.2007 (Annexure-D/3) directed the management of O.F.D.C. to furnish copies of certified list of employees on its role working at different parts of the State. Subsequently, opposite party No. 3 issued office order dated 24.03.2007 (Annexure-5) notifying 9.7.2007 as the date for holding secret ballot and that the place and time of voting by secret ballot to be finalized in consultation with management as well as the trade unions operating in O.F.D.C. Due to administrative exigencies and to facilitate completion of preliminary works concerning secret ballot for verification of membership of trade unions functioning in O.F.D.C, the opposite party No. 3 issued modified office order dated 4.7.2007 (Annexure-7), re-fixing the date of holding secret ballot to 9.7.2007. 4. The management of O.F.D.C. vide its letter dated 09.05.2007 furnished the list of employees/workmen who are on its role as on 1.4.2007 for the purpose of verification of membership of trade unions operating in O.F.D.C. On receipt of such list of employees/workmen from O.F.D.C, opposite party No. 3 sent copies of the same to all the trade unions including the Petitioner union operating in O.F.D.C. vide letter dated 16.05.2007 (Annexure-G/3) which has been received by the Petitioner on 17.5.2007. All the 16 trade unions operating in O.F.D.C. were requested to furnish their suggestions/objections, if any, to the list of employees furnished by the management of O.F.D.C. and also to furnish the list of employees of their respective trade unions by 30.5.2007 in accordance with Rule 11(3)(a) of the Rules. Subsequently, the opposite party No. 3 vide its letter dated 6.6.2007 (Annexure-C/3) again requested all the 16 trade unions to submit their list of members and to attend the discussions to be held on 16.6.2007 for disposal of their suggestions/objections with regard to holding of secret ballot for verification of membership and other allied points. The Petitioner, in spite of notice, did not attend the discussion held on 16.6.2007 nor submitted any list of its members and accordingly, the opposite party No. 3 held the meeting on 16.6.2007 in presence of the representatives of the management of O.F.D.C. and some other unions and finalized the modalities and process of holding secret ballot for verification of membership of trade unions operating in O.F.D.C. as per Annexure-6 to the writ petition. On the basis of written suggestion of the trade unions and the suggestions of the management and in consultation with their respective representatives, the location of the booths and place for counting of votes after secret ballot etc. were finalized. Hence, opposite parties 1 to 3 have specifically pleaded that there has been no violation of the statutory provisions contained in the Rules and the verification of membership by way of secret ballot have been done in accordance with such Rules. 5. For the purpose of verification of membership and recognition of trade unions a set of Rules have been framed, as aforesaid. Chapter-II of the said Rules contemplates the constitution of the State Implementation and Evaluation Committee. Rule 5 thereof enumerate the duty of the State Implementation and Evaluation Officer to receive the application of the unions, examine the same and recommend for grant of recognition by the employer. Different modalities for recognition are stipulated in the said Rule 5 of the Rules, which authorizes the State Implementation and Evaluation Officer to conduct verification of union membership by secret ballot for the purpose of recognition of the unions by the employer and for that purpose to appoint the Returning Officer and Polling Officer. Rule 6 prescribes the duties of the Returning Officer to conduct secret ballot in an industry for verification of membership of the unions for recognition by employer. As the exercise of power by the Returning Officer is under challenge, it will be prudent to quote Rule 6, which reads as follows: 6. The Returning Officer - The Duties of Returning Officer shall be- (a) to conduct secret ballot in any industry in accordance with the order of the State Implementation and Evaluation Officer, and for that purpose to collect the certified list of employees on the rolls of the industry from the employer; Note - Only workers borne in the establishment register shall be voters. (b) to hear claims/objections, if any, regarding entries in the certified list of voters and disposed them of; (c) to make arrangements for conducting voting in consultation with the employer and the trade unions and the law and order authority; if necessary. (b) to hear claims/objections, if any, regarding entries in the certified list of voters and disposed them of; (c) to make arrangements for conducting voting in consultation with the employer and the trade unions and the law and order authority; if necessary. (d) to notify the code of conduct for adoption of the participating unions for the purpose of the ballot; (e) to approve appointment of polling agents by the unions; and (f) to forward the result of ballot to the State Implementation and Evaluation Officer. 6. Chapter-Ill deals with method of conducting secret ballot. Rule 11 is relevant for adjudication of the present dispute and since violation of the said Rule is alleged in the present writ petition, it will be beneficial to quote the same, which reads as follows: 11. In case of Multiple unions - (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 Implementation and Evaluation Officer from any of the unions or the employer 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 union(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 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 least 15 days before the date of ballot. 7. (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 least 15 days before the date of ballot. 7. A combined reading of the Rule as detailed above, leads to an irresistible conclusion that before recognizing an union, it should be first determined as to who are the valid members of the said union and for arriving at such a conclusion, the only method prescribed by the Rules is to conduct voting by secret ballot. This method has been prescribed to prevent and/or avoid any attempt of the rival union claiming majority of the employees/workmen as their member, to resort to any unholy or unfair practices. By such secret ballot what has to be ascertained is as to how many of the total workmen of an industry are members of a particular union. 8. On consideration of the pleadings of the parties and on verification of records, which are produced before us, in pursuance of our order dated 28.09.2007, it is found that there has been no violation of the provision of the Rules with regard to conducting of secret ballot for verification of membership and recognition of trade unions operating in O.F.D.C. and further there has been substantial compliance with the provisions of Rules. Moreover, the Petitioner having participated in the election held by way of secret ballot for recognition of trade unions operating in O.F.D.C, it is not open for it to assail any procedural irregularity or impropriety in the process of holding of such election by way of secret ballot. Further, the Petitioner has failed to satisfy as to how it is prejudiced by any such procedural impropriety, if any, especially when there has been substantial compliance with the procedures for holding election by way of secret ballot, as prescribed under the Rules. The Petitioner having been provided with sufficient and reasonable opportunity to furnish the list of its members and for participation in the discussion for finalizing the process of holding secret ballot for verification of membership and recognition of trade unions operating in O.F.D.C. and the Petitioner having not availed of such opportunity, it cannot be said that there has been any violation of the principles of natural justice or infraction of any provisions of the Rules. The process of holding secret ballot for verification of membership of trade unions operating in O.F.D.C. having been completed, as has been revealed from the records and the Petitioner having duly participated in such secret ballot, it is not open for the Petitioner to question the same, especially when there has been substantial compliance with the provisions of the Rules. 9. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, we are of the view that there has been substantial compliance of the Rules by opposite parties 1 to 3 in conducting secret ballot for verification of membership of trade unions operating of O.F.D.C. and there has been no infraction of the statutory provisions contained in the said Rules so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. I.M. Quddusi, J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed