Judgment : The writ petition is seeking to declare the proceedings No.A/257/2010, dated 06-05-2010 issued by the Joint Commissioner of Labour/Returning Officer directing the petitioner union to contest the union elections without allotment of any symbol, as illegal and to direct the respondents to allot ‘Bell’ symbol to the petitioner union. 2. The petitioner union claiming to be registered, stated that it has nearly 200 members working in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant and its motive is to protect the legitimate rights and needs of its members and represent before the management. There are 21 trade unions in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant and the management conducts union elections every two years to elect the majority union and in a similar process in 2010, the Joint Commissioner of Labour was appointed as the Returning Officer. He addressed a letter, dated 20-04-2010, on which the representatives of 20 unions including the petitioner attended the meeting on 03-05-2010, in which the election programme was finalized. The petitioner opted for symbols Bell/Rose/Lion on 03-05-2010 itself, while some other unions requested for time, which was granted up to 06-05-2010. After the meeting on 06-05-2010, wherein the procedure and norms were prescribed, the Joint Commissioner allotted symbols to 18 trade unions, but not to the petitioner stating that ‘Bell’ was allotted to Visakha Steel Workers Union, which had that symbol in the earlier elections and as ‘Rose’ was the first option of the Steel Plant Employees Union and as ‘Lion’ was the symbol of Visakha Steel Employees Congress in the last elections. Visakha Steel Workers Union, which was allotted ‘Bell’, withdrew from the election and hence, the petitioner was entitled to allotment of ‘Bell’ symbol. The Joint Commissioner unethically and intentionally colluded with the other trade unions in spite of the representations, dated 07-05-2010 and 10-05-2010 and was proceeding to print a draft ballot paper without any symbol for the petitioner. Hence, the writ. 3. On 20-05-2010 this Court passed an interim order that the election scheduled to be held on 22-05-2010 may go on, but the results of the same shall not be declared. In W.P.M.P. No.36447 of 2011, Visakha Steel Employees Congress was ordered to be impleaded as the 4th respondent, while W.P.M.P. No.16188 of 2010 filed by the Steel Plant Employees Union to be impleaded as a respondent, does not appear to have been ordered. 4. In W.P.M.P. No.36447 of 2011, Visakha Steel Employees Congress was ordered to be impleaded as the 4th respondent, while W.P.M.P. No.16188 of 2010 filed by the Steel Plant Employees Union to be impleaded as a respondent, does not appear to have been ordered. 4. On behalf of the official respondents 1 to 3, the 3rd respondent Joint Commissioner of Labour in his counter affidavit has stated that the Code of Discipline is a voluntary Code for verification to determine the majority union and the criteria followed in allotment of symbols was explained to all the unions and the representatives of the petitioner were given time till 5.00 P.M. on 07-05-2010 to choose any other symbol, in the meeting on 06-05-2010 for the reasons stated by the petitioner itself in the writ. As the petitioner did not choose any other symbol within the time given, but gave a letter on 08-05-2010, a holiday, requesting to allot ‘Bell’ symbol, as Visakha Steel Workers Union withdrew from the election, the petitioner was informed by a letter dated 08-05-2010 that no reallotment of any symbols can be done after withdrawal. Thus, there was no irregularity or arbitrariness in the allotment of symbols and the procedure under the Code of Discipline was strictly followed. The elections were conducted on 22-05-2010, but results were not declared. 5. The affidavit of the newly impleaded 4th respondent in support of its miscellaneous petitions claimed that it was the majority union in 1993, 2003 and 2005 and is the single largest union in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. The progressive front of unions contested in 2010 in the name of Steel Plant Employees Union. As the results were not declared, the management was dealing with the earlier elected union and the interests of the workers are suffering. The petitioner did not suffer any prejudice for want of an election symbol, as its name was clearly visible in the ballot and in the interests of all the workmen, new election be ordered. 6. The petitioner in W.P.M.P. No.16188 of 2010 for impleadment/Steel Plant Employees Union claimed in its affidavits that the writ petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties due to non-impleadment of other contesting unions. The petitioner union, which never contested any election except supporting some existing union, alleged to have only 200 members out of 12,562 voters, which is 1.5% of the voters in the steel plant. The petitioner union, which never contested any election except supporting some existing union, alleged to have only 200 members out of 12,562 voters, which is 1.5% of the voters in the steel plant. It, however, stopped the declaration of election results and created labour unrest. Hence, it desired to be brought on record as a respondent. 7. Heard Sri D. Ravishankar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A. Ramesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, Sri V. Hari Haran, learned counsel for the 4th respondent and Sri B. Adinarayana Rao and Sri V. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.M.P. No.16188 of 2010. 8. The procedure adopted by the 3rd respondent till the meeting on 06-05-2010 is not questioned even by the petitioner and the proceedings of the 3rd respondent of the meeting, dated 06-05-2010 clearly mentioned the procedure being followed by the department in the matter of allotment of symbols, as per which, the symbol allotted to a union in the previous elections will have to be again allotted to the same union, if it opts for it. Similarly, if a union expresses first preference to a symbol, it will be allotted to it, if no other union opts for the same symbol as first preference and it is only if more than one union opt for the same symbol as first preference, the matter will be decided by either an understanding or a lottery. The writ affidavit and the material papers enclosed show that the non-allotment of ‘Bell’ or ‘Rose’ or ‘Lion’ to the petitioner union was as per the procedure/norms intimated to all the unions in the meeting. A copy of the ballot paper enclosed indicates the name of the petitioner union without a symbol to have been printed with equal prominence as any other union and the claim of the 3rd respondent that the petitioner union did not utilize the opportunity given to it to choose another symbol before the time granted till 5.00 P.M. on 07-05-2010 and that the request submitted after withdrawal on 08-05-2010, a holiday, could not be entertained, is not controverted by any further pleading or affidavit and even if the said claims are to be disputed as matters of fact, in a writ petition, disputed questions of fact will not be entertained or decided. 9. 9. Sri A. Ramesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Labour brought to notice para 43 of the guidelines for verification-cum-secret ballot of membership of unions for the purpose of recognition under the Code of Discipline, whereunder the contesting unions were mandated to supply the blocks of their respective symbols to the concerned Verification Officers by the dates fixed by them and the ballot papers being printed with only the name of the union and not with symbol of the union, if the union fails to supply the blocks by the appointed date and contended that as the petitioner did not avail the opportunity of opting for another symbol within the time granted by the Joint Commissioner, printing of the name of the petitioner union alone is in perfect compliance of the guidelines. 10. The decision in Food Corporation of India Staff Union v. Food Corporation of India and others 1995 (2) LLJ 272 = AIR 1995 (SC) 1344 is relied on behalf of the petitioner, wherein the Apex Court laid down the norms and procedures to be followed for assessing the representative character of trade unions by the secret ballot system, one of which is printing of ballot papers in the prescribed proforma incorporating the names of all the participating unions in alphabetical order after ascertaining different symbols of respective unions. Such ascertainment of different symbols of respective unions has to be necessarily as per some reasonable procedure, of which, all the participating unions should have notice and if such a reasonable procedure is adopted uniformly and if a participating union does not avail the opportunity of providing the information about its symbol to the official concerned, the same can, in no manner, be construed to be in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court. 11. The decision in Lata Devi v. Haru Rajwar (1989) 4 Supreme Court Cases 773is relied on by the other two unions on record herein, wherein the Apex Court was dealing with a case under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 about the complaint of reallotment of different symbol to the election petitioner. 11. The decision in Lata Devi v. Haru Rajwar (1989) 4 Supreme Court Cases 773is relied on by the other two unions on record herein, wherein the Apex Court was dealing with a case under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 about the complaint of reallotment of different symbol to the election petitioner. The Apex Court observed that while there was no dispute about the importance of the symbol, the result of the election should have been materially affected by any non-compliance with the constitutional or statutory provisions and any violation of any statutory rule per se will not invalidate the election. While it is true that the principles laid down were with reference to the specific provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, more particularly Section 100 thereof, there can be no doubt that the principle that any violation of any procedural safeguard in an election process per se may not vitiate or invalidate an election unless the result thereof has been materially affected by such infraction, is a salutary principle that can be safely applied to the democratic process of election under any other contingency. According to the affidavit of the petitioner union in the writ itself, it has a membership of nearly 200 in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. The petitioner in W.P.M.P. No.16188 of 2010 stated on oath about there being 12,562 voters involved in the process of secret ballot for recognition of the majority union. Apart from the name of the petitioner union being found with equal prominence as any other union in the ballot paper though without a symbol, any marginal disadvantage due to the absence of a symbol for the union of 200 members, could not have been such as to materially affect the result of the election in the ordinary and natural course of human events. 12. Thus, the procedure adopted by the 3rd respondent in the matter of allotment of symbols to different unions and the non-allotment of any symbol to the petitioner union was in tune with the norms and guidelines adopted by the department all through and specifically intimated to all the unions involved. 12. Thus, the procedure adopted by the 3rd respondent in the matter of allotment of symbols to different unions and the non-allotment of any symbol to the petitioner union was in tune with the norms and guidelines adopted by the department all through and specifically intimated to all the unions involved. The non-availment of opportunity given to the petitioner to select a symbol of its own, places the blame at the door step of the petitioner itself and any belated option after withdrawal of another union could not have been acted upon as per the prescribed norms and guidelines according to the 3rd respondent. Even otherwise, the Code of Discipline governing such secret ballot is not shown to have been violated in any manner and assuming that there is any deviation from the norms or guidelines, the same is not shown to have, in any manner, materially affected the result of the election. Invocation of extraordinary original jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is also guided by considerations of equity and the petitioner with a membership of about 200 out of 12,562 is not shown to be entitled even to any such equitable considerations, while any violation of the guidelines is not even remotely probablised. Under the circumstances, the writ petition has to fail and is accordingly dismissed without costs. W.P.M.P. No.16188 of 2010 is, hence, closed as no longer necessary.