Hon'ble SINGH, J.—These two writ petitions have been preferred by the KEC Employees Association and Kamani Employees Union against the order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Unions and Joint Labour Commissioner, Jaipur Region, Jaipur filed as Annexure-5 dated 21.3.2007 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4246/2007. The Assistant Registrar taking note of the facts and circumstances and having come to the conclusion that both the Unions were having membership of 132 members, as such, he was of the opinion that with a view to determine as to which of the Unions represented the majority of workmen the same would be determined by secret ballots. The K.E.C. Employees Association not being satisfied with the order of Assistant Registrar dated 21.3.2007 preferred appeal which was dismissed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur vide order dated 25.5.2007 (Annexure-7). Both these orders have been challenged by the K.E.C. Employees Association, one of the trade unions, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4246/2007. 2. The rival trade union Kamani Employees Union which was also campaigning for the rights of the employees-Union for being registered as a recognized Union has also come up in writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2790/2008 wherein the said Union has challenged the order dated 144.3.2008 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal in an appeal under Section 9(1) of the Industrial Dispute (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1958 against the order dated 27.11.2007 passed by the Registrar of Trade Union, Jaipur and Joint Labour Commissioner, Jaipur. 3. The controversy, briefly stated, is that the rival Unions submitted their application for being registered as the recognized Union under Chapter II-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended by Rajasthan Act No. 34 of 1958. The proceedings in this behalf started in the year 2006 before the Assistant Registrar for registration as both the rival Trade Unions claimed to enjoy the support of majority of Workmen and on that basis sought registration as the recognized Unions under Chapter II-B of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, as amended and applicable to Rajasthan. 4. The proceedings in this behalf started in the year 2006 before the Assistant Registrar for registration as both the rival Trade Unions claimed to enjoy the support of majority of Workmen and on that basis sought registration as the recognized Unions under Chapter II-B of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, as amended and applicable to Rajasthan. 4. As has been stated above, the Assistant Registrar prima facie came to the conclusion vide Annexure-5 dated 21.3.2007 as follows:- ^^eSllZ ds-bZ-lh- baVjus'kuy fy- t;iqj esa vofLFkr nksuksa Jfed ;wfu;uksa ;Fkk dekuh ,EIykbZt ;wfu;u rFkk ds-bZlh- baVjus'kuy ,lksfl;s'ku }kjk lnL;ksa ds nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij dh xbZ tkap ds vuqlkj D;ksafd 132 lnL; nksuksa ;wfu;uksa dh lnL;rk xzg.k fd;s gq, ik;s x;s gSaA vr% ;FkkFkZ :i esa lnL;rk dk fu/kkZj.k xqIr ernku }kjk fd;k tkuk okaNuh; gSaA** 5. The aforesaid order was challenged by K.E.C. Employees Association by means of an appeal under Section 2-I before the learned Industrial Tribunal. The said order was affirmed by the learned Industrial Tribunal vide its judgment dated 25.5.2007 (Annexure-7) holding as follows:- ^^mijksDr lkjs foospu ls pwafd izdj.k esa 132 lnL;ksa ds uke nksuksa gh ;wfu;u dh lwfp esa leku :i ls n'kkZ;s x;s ik;s x;s gS ds rF; ds vk/kkj ij iz'u vkns'k@funsZ'k ikfjr fd;s x;s gSaA ,oa blh lEcU/k esa of.kZr vuqlkj fd jftLVªkj lnL;ksa ds lR;kiu lEcU/kh ,slk dksbZ lSEifyax rjhdk viuk ldsxk tks og mfpr le>s rFkk ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ^^vkWVks eksckby izksMDV** esa lnL;ksa dk leku :i ls uke tks fyIr ugha jgk gS rFkk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dsl fu.kZ; ^^jke ckx iSysl gksVy deZpkjh la?k** esa xqIr ernku ls ernku dk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS ds rF;ksa dks ns[krs gq, rFkk vkns'k esa of.kZr vuqlkj iz'u vkns'k ,d vafre vkns'k Hkh ugha gS rFkk dks ns[krs gq, vihykFkhZ ;wfu;u dh ;g vihy Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; ugha curk gS] vr% vkns'k gS fd] vkns'k vihy vihykFkhZ Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; ugha gksus ls [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA** 6. It appears that after the aforesaid order was passed and though the writ petitions had been filed before this court there were no interim orders passed in the writ petitions filed by the Association and as such the Registrar of the Trade Union passed and order on 27.11.2007 (Annexure-7) in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2790/2008, which reads as follows:- "1. President/Genl. President/Genl. Secretary, Kamani Employees Union, P.No. 31, Chamanwadi, Narayanpuri, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur-302 012 2. President Genl. Secretary, KEC Employees Association, through KEC International Ltd., Jhotwara, Jaipur- 302 012. Subject: Verification of the membership for the Representative Character of Union under Industrial Disputes (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1947 and Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rule, 1958. Reference: Applications filed by the KEC Employees Association and Kamani Employees Union under Industrial Dispute (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1947 and Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. Sir, Please refer to your above applications submitted for a Certificate of Representative Character of the Union under Industrial Dispute (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1947 and Rajasthan Disputes Rules, 1958. I as Registrar of Representative Union/Trade Unions heard your viewpoints and enquired the relevant points of the matter on 6.11.2007, 14.11.2007 and 16.11.2007 in order to ascertain the membership of the unions for the purpose of section 9-E, 9-F, 9-G or 9-H. After examining all facts, courts ruling and legal provision of the Acts and the membership forms submitted by both the unions, I think that the proper verification has to be carried out under a certain procedure, which is deemed fit looking to the facts and circumstances. The verification will be carried out in the factory premises on 7th December, 2007 at 11.00 AM. onwards and the procedure set down for the verification is as below:- 1. The old membership forms submitted earlier by the unions shall not be taken into account for the verification as the old situation arose out of it, is already under dispute. Therefore, the latest membership forms of Oct., 07-Nov., 07 submitted by the unions on 16th Nov., 2007 before the undersigned shall only be taken into account for the verification. 2. Every employee who is working on the role of the factory will have to present himself before Registrar or authorized representatives of the Registrar. 3. If any employee remains absent on the date of verification, then, no another chance shall be given to the employees to ascertain his membership. 4. One representative of both the unions will be allowed to verify the correctness of the employed workman. The union and the employees are humbly requested to maintain the industrial peace and harmony and co-operate for doing the legal obligation." 7. 4. One representative of both the unions will be allowed to verify the correctness of the employed workman. The union and the employees are humbly requested to maintain the industrial peace and harmony and co-operate for doing the legal obligation." 7. This order, as was stated hereinabove, was challenged by Kamani Employees Union in appeal and the said appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 14.3.2008 by the learned Industrial Tribunal. While dismissing the appeal, the learned Tribunal held as follows:- ^^mijksDr lkjs foospu dk lkj gS fd blh lEcU/k dk fookn ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa fjV ds :i esa tks fd bl U;k;ky; }kjk fuf.kZr vihy ds vkns'k dks pqukSrh nsrs gq, yafcr gSA pwafd ekeyk bl U;k;ky; esa yafcr ugha gS vr% vihykFkhZ tks Lo;a mDr fjV esa i{kdkj gS] ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa dk;Zokgh dj ldrk gS blds vfrfjDr iz'uxr vkns'k vihykFkhZ dks lquk tkdj ikfjr fd;k gS ,oa vafre vkns'k Hkh ugha dgk tk ldrk vr% bu lHkh rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, eSa vihykFkhZ dh ;g vihy Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; ugha ikrk gwaA tgka rd jftLVªkj ;g dk;Zokgh ugha dj ldrk ,sls ,rjkt vihykFkhZ us izR;FkhZ la[;k 1 ds ;gka izLrqr tokc esa ugha fy, gS blds vfrfjDr ekeyk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa yafcr Hkh gSA tgka rd jftLVªkj ,slh dk;Zokgh fgr vf/kd`r gS tks lgk;d jftLVªkj bl lEcU/k esa esjk fuosnu gS fd ;g vkns'k vafre vkns'k ugha gS lkFk gh blh fookn esa lEcfU/kr fjV ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa yafcr gSA vr% ;g dFku Lohdk;Z ;ksX; bl izØe ij ugha gSA vr% vkns'k gS fd vkns'k vihykFkhZ ;wfu;u }kjk izLrqr ;g vihy Lohdkj gkss ;ksX; ugha gkss ls vLohdkj dj [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA** 8. Reading of both the appellate orders passed by the learned Tribunal exercising jurisdiction under Section 9(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Rajasthan Amendment) Act goes to show that the order impugned in the appeals were not appealable orders contemplated under Section 9(1) as no appeal against the interlocutory orders was maintainable before the learned Tribunal. 9. Reading of both the appellate orders passed by the learned Tribunal exercising jurisdiction under Section 9(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Rajasthan Amendment) Act goes to show that the order impugned in the appeals were not appealable orders contemplated under Section 9(1) as no appeal against the interlocutory orders was maintainable before the learned Tribunal. 9. In order to appreciate the aforesaid question decided by the learned Tribunal, Section 9(1) is reproduced below:- "9-I. Appeal to Industrial Tribunal from order of Registrar.- (1) Any party to a proceeding before the Registrar may, within thirty days from the date of an order passed by the Registrar, under this Chapter, appeal against such order to the Industrial Tribunal: Provided that the Industrial Tribunal may, for sufficient reason, admit any appeal made after the expiry of such period. (2) The Industrial Tribunal may admit an appeal under sub-section (1) if on a perusal of the memorandum of appeal and the decision appealed against it finds that the decision is contrary to law or otherwise erroneous. (3) The Industrial Tribunal in appeal may confirm, modify or rescind any order passed by the Registrar and may pass such consequential orders as it may deem fit. A copy of the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal shall be sent to the Registrar." 10. The above provision clearly shows that an appeal is only provided against the order passed under Chapter 2-B of the Act. Both the orders i.e. dated 21.3.2007 (Annexure 5) in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4246/2007 directing that the majority would be determined by secret ballot; and dated 27.11.2007 (Annexure-7) in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2790/2008, cannot be said to be the orders under Chapter II-B as no application submitted under Section 2-E was decided by the Assistant Registrar and, therefore, no exception can be taken to the orders passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal holding that the appeal against the said orders was not maintainable under Section 2-I. It is only the final order granting or cancelling the registration which is capable of being challenged by way of appeal under Section 2-I and, therefore, no exception can be taken to the orders passed by the learned Tribunal dated 14.3.2008 and 25-5-2007. Chapter II-B as amended in Rajasthan envisages three kinds of orders. Chapter II-B as amended in Rajasthan envisages three kinds of orders. Under Section 2-E the order is of granting certificate of registration, under Section 2-F is an order of cancellation of registration and under Section 2-G is an order for registration of another union as a recognized union in place of the existing union. This becomes all the more clear when Section 2-J provides that every order passed under Sections 2-E, 2-F and 2-G and the order passed in appeal under Section 2-I shall be published in the manner prescribed. Thus, when Section 2-I provides for filing of an appeal against an order passed under Chapter II-B (this chapter) it takes into account only the order under Sections 2-E, 2-F and 2-G. Since the orders dated 21.3.2007 directing holding of secret ballot and 27.11.2007 were both interlocutory orders not being order falling within the scope of Section 2-E, 2-F or 2-G it was rightly held that they were not appealable orders under Section 2-I and the appeals were rightly dismissed. 11. So far as the order dated 21.3.2007 (Annexure-5) challenged by the petitioner in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4246/2007 i.e. KEC Employees Association is concerned, directing that the question of majority of representation of Workers by the rival trade unions would be determined by means of secret ballots is concerned, the same does not need to detain this Court in view of the subsequent order passed by the Registrar i.e. 27.11.2007. As would be evident, both the trade unions appeared before the said authority, as has been quoted hereinabove from the order dated 27.11.2007, that on hearing both sides their view points were heard on 6.11.2007, 14.11.2007 and 16.11.2007 and after hearing the representatives of the rival unions to ascertain the question of membership of the union for the purposes of section 9-B, 9-F, 9-G and 9-H, the Registrar gave the directions No. 1 to 4, as has been quoted hereinabove. A look at the above four directions quoted hereinabove in the order dated 27.11.2007 clearly goes to show that the Registrar while enumerating the steps for determining the question as to which of the union is having the majority of workman has given a go bye specifically to the secret ballot procedure which was sought to be undertaken under the order dated 21.3.2007. That being so, so far as the grievance of the petitioner KEC Employees Association with regard to the order dated 21.3.2007 is concerned, that does not survive in the light of the order dated 27.11.2007. Moreover, this order dated 27.11.2007 was not assailed by the Association unlike its rival Union. 12. Accordingly, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4246/2007 filed by KEC Employees Association against the order dated 21.3.2007 and the appellate order of the learned Industrial Tribunal dated 25.5.2007 deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. 13. Accordingly, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4246/2007 stands dismissed. 14. As far as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2790/2008 filed by Kamani Employees Union is concerned, the grievance which has been raised against the order dated 27.11.2007, as has been held above, the said order is an interlocutory order and in case the petitioner Kamani Employees Union is aggrieved by the ultimate order or decision that may be taken by the Registrar of Representative Unions under Section 9-E, the petitioner would have the opportunity to challenge the same in accordance with law under Section 9-I of the Act. 15. Accordingly, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2790/2008 filed by Kamani Employees Union also stands dismissed. The interim order stands vacated. 16. Consequently, both the writ petitions stand dismissed.