ORDER : K. Chandru, J. 1. The petitioner is a Trade Union affiliated to the Bharthiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) an India Federation. In the present writ petition the petitioner seeks for a direction to consider their representation dated December 22, 2010 and declare that the petitioner Union is a recognized Union and also to confer all the statutory benefits as are extended to other Unions as per the letter of the Union of India dated May 17, 2007. When the matter came up on January 21, 2011, the counsel for the petitioner was directed to serve papers on the Standing counsel for the 2nd respondent. Accordingly papers were served on Mr. R. Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the Chennai Port Trust. 2. On notice, the 2nd respondent had filed a counter affidavit dated March 15, 2011. The petitioner today filed a rejoinder dated March 29, 2011. 3. The case of the petitioner as revealed from, the affidavit is that the Government of India had issued circulars from time to time for grant of recognition to various Trade Unions constituted in the Port Trust and other Public Sector Undertakings. In view of one such circular issued by the Ministry of Shipping and Road Transport, Department of Shipping dated May 17, 2007, the 2nd respondent had addressed that since various Unions are seeking recognition pointing out that there are similar unions which have been granted recognition and therefore, pending finalization of a recognition policy, the Chennai Port Trust was directed to consider the grant of recognition to; first major 7 Unions in the Chennai Port Trust and after conferring recognition to grant appropriate benefits attached to he said conferment or recognition. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner Union that they are having a membership of 124 workers as per the check-off System, whereas Unions like Port, Dock and Water Front Workers Federation of India and Madras Harbour Workers Union affiliated to AITUC & WFTU are having smaller membership. 4. Before filing the present writ petition, the petitioner Union had filed a writ Petition in W.P. No. 7759/2010 (3 seeking for a direction to consider their representation dated March 24, 2010 and also to grant recognition. This Court without going into the merits of the said averments, directed the respondent to consider their representation within a time frame. 4. Before filing the present writ petition, the petitioner Union had filed a writ Petition in W.P. No. 7759/2010 (3 seeking for a direction to consider their representation dated March 24, 2010 and also to grant recognition. This Court without going into the merits of the said averments, directed the respondent to consider their representation within a time frame. Since the time frame was not; adhered to, the petitioner Union filed a contempt petition No. 750/2010. The contempt petition came to be closed by an order dated July 7, 2010 stating that the respondents have complied with the direction and hence it is unnecessary to pursue the contempt. It was thereafter the petitioner came forward with a plea that in support of their submission, they have produced a copy of the letter dated November 29, 2010 issued by the Information Officer. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the Port Trust, the stand taken by the petitioner had been disputed. A reference was made to settlement u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act dated May 25, 2001. Before the said settlement there were 3 Unions which were recognized and they were affiliated to the HMS and AITUC. After the settlement. Unions which were affiliated to AITUC and INTUC were continued to be recognized. Upto the filing of the writ petition as per the communication sent to the Ministry dated May 28, 2007, several Unions were recognized and the petitioner is not one of them. In paragraph 7 of the counter, it was stated that as per the Ministries Guidelines, they also made an exercise by inviting views of Registered Trade Unions and after ascertaining their views a joint discussion was held once again on August 7, 2010. The petitioner Union also participated in the exercise. During the exercise it was found that the only 50% of the Union were ready for secret ballet and the remaining 50% were continuing the Check-off System for verification of their membership. Therefore, pending finalization on these issues, the Port Trust was meeting the representatives of Major Labour Federations. With reference to the continuing of recognition to the seven Unions, it was stated that the earlier communication dated May 17, 2007 continues to be valid. 6. Therefore, pending finalization on these issues, the Port Trust was meeting the representatives of Major Labour Federations. With reference to the continuing of recognition to the seven Unions, it was stated that the earlier communication dated May 17, 2007 continues to be valid. 6. In support of the averments made the Port Trust also produced a copy of the communication sent by the Chairman to the Ministry dated February 18, 2010 enclosing membership strength of each Union which was done by way of check-off conducted for the year 2010. While the name of the petitioner Union finds a place in SI. No. 8, the other 7 Unions were admittedly paving more membership than the petitioner Union. Contradictorily in the rejoinder the petitioner contended that the check-off verification was made during 2010 whereas in 2011, they have higher membership and a copy of the list of membership was also produced as certified by the Secretary of the Port Trust dated March 16, 2011 and the petitioner Union now claims higher membership than what had been in the check-off verification during 2010. However, these are not the relevant issues for considering the claim made by the petitioner Union. 7. In the absence of any law relating to Trade Union recognition in the State of Tamil Nadu, the claims of Union can be based only upon the Circulars and various communications issued by the Ministry. In fact, as per the communication issued by the Registry, pending finalization of the policy by the Ministry, the first seven Unions alone have to be recognized and as rightly held by the Port Trust, those 7 Unions even as per the check-off verification conducted during 2010 are having more membership than the petitioner Union. 8. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the Judgment of the Division Bench Judgment presided by Mr. A.K. Ganguly C.J. (as he then was) in K.V. Sridharan and S. Ragupathy Vs. S. Sundaramoorthy and The Principal Chief Postmaster General, (2009) 3 MLJ 1320 , In paragraph 3, the Division Bench has observed as follows:- 3. Admittedly, the said Union is a. Registered Trade Union. A.K. Ganguly C.J. (as he then was) in K.V. Sridharan and S. Ragupathy Vs. S. Sundaramoorthy and The Principal Chief Postmaster General, (2009) 3 MLJ 1320 , In paragraph 3, the Division Bench has observed as follows:- 3. Admittedly, the said Union is a. Registered Trade Union. Once a trade Union is registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, it becomes a body corporate u/s 13 of the said Act by the name under which it is registered and thereafter it has a perpetual succession and common seal, and has the power to acquire and hold both movable and immovable properties and to contract and sue or be sued in the said name. Therefore, by way of registration of a trade union under the said Act, the trade union does not become an Authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It continues to remain just a private body and all disputes relating to election of such a private body cannot be canvassed or challenged in a writ petition. The said Act does not make any provision for recognition of such a union. Any recognition of union, if it is a union relating to the employees of the Central Government, is governed by some departmental circulars. Those circulars are administrative in nature and not statutory. Therefore, those circulars also cannot be enforced in a writ petition. In the light of the binding legal precedents and the factual matrix involved in this case, the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.