ORDER : D. Hariparanthaman, J. The petitioner is the Treasurer in the first respondent Union, which is registered under the Trade Unions Act,1926. The said Union gave amendment of bye-law to the Registrar of Trade Unions, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli, who called for a Report on the request to amend the byelaws, from the third respondent, after holding an enquiry. Based on the afore-said direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner, the third respondent, namely, the Labour Officer, Tuticorin, issued notice to the said Union, namely, Tuticorin Port Mariner's and General Staff Union to appear for enquiry relating to amendment of bye-law. Accordingly, enquiry took place on 17.11.2015, 20.11.2015 and 23.11.2015, wherein, both the President and the Secretary of the Union participated, but both of them levelled allegations against each other stating that they were not duly elected to the office. In the final enquiry took place on 23.11.2015, the Secretary of the Union walked out of the enquiry. 2. In these circumstances, the Labour Officer, Tuticorin issued the proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 378/15 dated 26.11.2015 to hold election for the post of President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Union on 21.12.2015. The same was intimated to both the President and the Secretary of the Union. Thereafter, another proceedings were also issued in Na.Ka. No. 378 of 2015 dated 01.12.2015 that the nomination could be filed upto 07.12.2015 and for withdrawal of nomination was upto 09.12.2015. As per those proceedings, the Labour Officer would conduct the election. 3. Aggrieved over the issuance of the afore-said proceedings, the Tuticorin Port Mariner's and General Staff Union filed a writ petition in W.P. (MD).No.21902 of 2015 questioning the aforesaid proceedings dated 26.11.2015 and 01.12.2015. 4. The writ petition was heard on various dates and the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner therein submitted that they wanted a free and fair election and also the voters' list to be furnished to them. It was also submitted that a Memo was to be filed by the Labour Officer herself to hold the election in a free and fair manner. It was represented that since the Labour Officer is an Official of the Labour Department, the Tamil Nadu Government, they repose confidence on her and therefore, the election could be conducted by the Labour Officer. It was represented that since the Labour Officer is an Official of the Labour Department, the Tamil Nadu Government, they repose confidence on her and therefore, the election could be conducted by the Labour Officer. In these circumstances, they also represented that they could be permitted to give list of names/workmen who are either dead or retired from service and the Labour Officer could verify the same with the employer and to correct necessary changes in the Voters' List. 5. Accordingly, W.P.(MD).No.21902 of 2015 was disposed of, on 15.11.2015 recording the aforesaid statement by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the Labour Officer. 6. At this juncture, it is stated that as against the order dated 15.11.2015 in W.P.(MD).No. 21902 of 2015, a writ appeal was also filed in W.A. (MD).No.1412 of 2015. The Division Bench of this Court, rejected the said writ appeal in W.A.(MD).No. 1412 of 2015, vide its order dated 17.12.2015, confirming the order dated 15.11.2015 in W.P.(MD).No. 21902 of 2015. 7. In the above background, this writ petition is filed questioning the very same proceedings dated 26.11.2015 and 01.12.2015 relating to holding of election for the post of President, Secretary and Treasurer, on 21.12.2015. 8. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has made the following submissions:- (I) Though this Court has passed an order in W.P.(MD).No.21902 of 2015, dated 15.11.2015 as stated above, which is also enclosed in the additional typed set of papers and the Writ Appeal was also dismissed as against the order in W.P.(MD).No.21902 of 2015, dated 15.11.2015, still this Court can entertain this writ petition, as the Labour Officer, has no authority to conduct the election as per the bye laws of the Union. Hence, this Court could stall the election process, at this stage. (II) Further, since the employer is a Public Sector Undertaking, owned by the Central Government, the Labour Officer, can have no jurisdiction to hold the election. 9. As far as the first submission is concerned, I am not agreeable to the said submission for the simple reason that it is well settled that there is no illegality in conducting the election by the Labour Officer, particularly, in the given situation. 9. As far as the first submission is concerned, I am not agreeable to the said submission for the simple reason that it is well settled that there is no illegality in conducting the election by the Labour Officer, particularly, in the given situation. As stated above, the Union itself made an application to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour for seeking amendment of bye law, who in turn forwarded the same to the Labour Officer, Tirunelveli, who in the course of holding enquiry thought it fit to hold election, as there was some dispute. In the aforesaid circumstances, I have no hesitation to reject the contention of the petitioner that since the employer is a Central Government Establishment, the Labour Officer belonging to the Tamil Nadu Government could not hold election relating to a Trade Union. 10. Further, as far as trade union is concerned, the Labour Department of Tamil Nadu Government is the sole authority and the Registrar of Trade Union is the Deputy Commissioner of Labour of the concerned area. In the case of Food Corporation of India Staff Union v. Food Corporation of India reported in 1995 (2) LLJ 272 = AIR 1995 SC 1344 , the Apex Court has recognised the election of Office Bearers of a Trade Union could be conducted by way of ballot. Therefore, one cannot take objection for holding election through ballot. Furthermore, the election process started long back and the election is to take place on 21.12.2015. Therefore, the second submission also has no legs to stand. 11. For all the above-said reasons and more importantly, taking into account the order dated 15.11.2015 made in W.P.(MD).No.21902 of 2015 and Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD).No.1412 of 2015, dated 17.12.2015, confirming the order of the W.P.(MD).No.21902 of 2015, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and this writ petition fails and it is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.