Judgment :- These two matters came up on 12.1.2010. On that day, Mr.D.Bharathi representing Mr. S. Manoharan, learned counsel for the petitioner informed that the subject matter of the Writ Petitions has become infructuous, since the failure report has been sent on 6.1.2010 and 7.1.2010 by the Conciliation Officer. Recording the same, this Court passed an oral order dismissing both the Writ Petitions as infructuous. However, Mr.D.Bharathi Subsequently representing before this Court that his statement was only in respect of W.P.No.25209 of 2009 and not in respect of the other Writ Petition, namely W.P.No.25210 of 2009. Therefore, the matter was directed to be posted before this court 'for being mentioned'. Accordingly, today in the cause list, it appears as an item under the caption 'for being mentioned'. 2. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent management is present. In the light of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the oral order passed on 12.1.2010 stands cancelled. After hearing the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petition No.25209 of 2009 alone will stand dismissed as infructuous, since it is admitted by both sides that failure report has been sent on 6.1.2010 and 7.1.2010 by the Conciliation Officer. 3. In respect of W.P.25210 of 2009, the prayer of the Writ Petitioner is for directing the 1st respondent Labour Officer, Cuddalore to initiate conciliation proceedings with regard to the dispute raised by the petitioner for recognition of the petitioner union by the second respondent company and conduct the Union Elections in the 2nd respondent company. 4. It is seen from the records that the petitioner union claims that they have got their union registered in the year 2008 and the Registration Number is 220/CDR. They claim that they are having more members than the majority union. Whenever they made any demand on the 2nd respondent management, there was no proper response from the management. They sent a representation dated 29.6.2009 to the 1st respondent Labour Officer. In the reply submitted by the management on 3.10.2009, it is stated that there were other trade unions, which are recognised by them and there are about 145 operators working in that company. The petitioner union is seventh in the order. Since they have registered only on 30.9.2008, the question of holding talks with them will not arise. In the reply submitted by the management on 3.10.2009, it is stated that there were other trade unions, which are recognised by them and there are about 145 operators working in that company. The petitioner union is seventh in the order. Since they have registered only on 30.9.2008, the question of holding talks with them will not arise. It is also stated that they have been conducting negotiation with the other six recognised unions. In respect of the charter of demand and service conditions, already there was a settlement under section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which got expired on 31.3.2009. It is stated that the petitioner union has no substantial follow up and their dispute cannot be recognised by the Conciliation Officer. The petitioner further sent a representation dated 11.11.2009 stating that they are having 93 workers in the establishment. Therefore, any talks held in respect of the workers including the petitioner union will not be binding on them. Hence, they requested the management to conduct election for recognition of the union and thereafter grant recognition. When there was no response from the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ Petition. 5. Curiously, the petitioner did not seek for direction for considering their charter of demands. But, on the contrary, they are seeking for conciliation in respect of grant of recognition to the petitioner union. Admittedly the petitioner union was registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The said Act excepting for providing registration of the union do not oblige any employer to recognise any particular union and no procedure has been prescribed for grant of any recognition. Unlike certain other States, where there is a specific local law for grant of recognition, in respect of this State, the matter of recognition is non-statutory and covered by the code of discipline evolved in the tripartite Labour Conference. 6. Further, the industrial dispute as defined under section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act only mentions about any dispute or difference between employers and workmen in respect of the conditions of labour or terms of the employment or any employment or non-employment. The Courts time and again held that the grant of recognition of the union cannot be brought under section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act and it cannot be the subject matter of the industrial dispute. 7. The Courts time and again held that the grant of recognition of the union cannot be brought under section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act and it cannot be the subject matter of the industrial dispute. 7. In thelight of the same, this Court is unable to give the directions sought for by the petitioner union in W.P.25210 of 2009. Accordingly, W.P.25210 of 2009 stands dismissed. 8. In the result, W.P.25209 of 2009 stands dismissed as infructuous. W.P.25210 of 2009 stands dismissed as not maintainable. No costs.