JUDGMENT : The petitioner is concerned with the implementation of the policy as revealed in Ext.P3, which the management is said to have undertaken before this Court as recorded in Ext.P4 judgment. The petitioner, in effect wants this Court, to issue a mandamus against the Management Company to ensure that no Union of workmen other than the Unions having at least 25% representation of the total workmen are called for negotiations. The petitioner Union, who admittedly has around 36% representation of the total workmen, rely on the undertaking seen from Ext.P4, made by the Management Company. Ext.P4 was passed in a writ petition filed by the additional 6th respondent against the policy decision of the Management, as revealed from Ext.P3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India Staff Union v. Food Corporation of India and Others [(1995) Supp (1) SCC 678] to urge that the intention behind a Trade Union having majority representation, being called for negotiations, is to maintain industrial peace and to ensure that the majority will binds the workmen. 2. Learned Counsel for the 6th respondent Union submits that there is no right on the petitioner to seek implementation of a letter as seen at Ext.P3 nor can the management be held down to the undertaking merely because they had decided to include the other representative Unions also in the negotiation. Reliance is placed on the decision in Praga Tools Corporation v. C.V. Imanual and others [(1969) SCC 1306] wherein it was categorically held that a writ would lie only for enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other purposes. 3. It is trite that a mandamus would issue only when there is available a right and a corresponding duty imposed on the authority; which the authority has failed to discharge Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur V. Governing body of the Nalanda College, Bihar Sharif & Others ( AIR 1962 SC 1210 ). In the present case what the petitioner Union seeks is to ensure that Unions having representation of 25% of workmen alone are called to the negotiating table. Rai Shivendra Bahadur V. Governing body of the Nalanda College, Bihar Sharif & Others ( AIR 1962 SC 1210 ). In the present case what the petitioner Union seeks is to ensure that Unions having representation of 25% of workmen alone are called to the negotiating table. It cannot but be immediately observed that, it is the Management's prerogative to decide on who should be called to the negotiating table, subject only to the reservation that the majority-Unions necessarily have to be participated in the negotiation. 4. As can be seen from Food Corporation of India Staff Union v. Food Corporation of India and Others [(1995) Supp (1) SCC 678] the Trade Unions owe their very existence to further the cause of collective bargaining and only a settlement entered into with a majority Union or Unions would have a binding flavour as provided in Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act for short). The first requirement as declared is a registration under the Trade Unions Act, 1926; which the 6th respondent has. The cited decision is an authority for the above and then devises a method by which an election (referendum) could be conducted by 'secret ballot' to pin point those Unions having representation and confidence of the majority of workmen. This exercise was on the request made by the parties therein; definitely worthy of emulation in a situation warranting such identification. The decision does not at all further the cause ventilated by the petitioner herein; to keep out the 6th respondent who has about 15% representation of the workmen. The mere fact that certain representative Unions did not have workmen, to the extent as declared in the policy of the Management, cannot be an impediment on the Management calling such Unions also to the negotiating table. 5. The ID Act and the conciliation contemplated there, as also the binding nature of a settlement arrived at with the majority Unions, is designed in such a manner to ensure industrial peace. There can hence be no claim raised by an individual worker or a minority Union, to be called to the negotiating table. The prerogative to call majority Unions only to the negotiating table, is on the Management, so as to avoid solitary and disparate claims being raised, which do not affect the majority of workmen. There can hence be no claim raised by an individual worker or a minority Union, to be called to the negotiating table. The prerogative to call majority Unions only to the negotiating table, is on the Management, so as to avoid solitary and disparate claims being raised, which do not affect the majority of workmen. However, if the management decides to call, even a Trade Union which do not have a representation as required in Ext.P3, it cannot be said that there is any illegality perpetrated. 6. As has been noticed, the petitioner who is a Trade Union having around 36% of representation has a right to be called to the negotiating table but does not have a right to say that none or any others should not be called for such negotiations. The collective bargaining exercise is made more effective by inviting even a minority Union for negotiations, especially when the Management decides so to do. The decision so taken definitely is grounded on the view of the Management; that such participation would not delay the negotiations or impede the signing of an agreement. 7. In such circumstance, this Court is not inclined to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction, so as to prevent a Union having substantial representation but not up to 25% being invited to the negotiating table by the Management. The right conferred on a majority Union as per the ID Act and based on the policy, is confined, to be invited for negotiations. There can be no right claimed to prevent a minority Union from being invited for negotiations. A settlement entered into with a minority Union alone, would have no statutory force, on the majority of workmen, but that cannot lead to a total bar from participation of such Union, if desired by the Management. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that being a Company registered in Mumbai, the Unions within the State of Maharashtra are called to the negotiating table only in accordance with the prescriptions under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 and the Head Office adopts a uniform policy all over the Country with respect to the various Unions and this has to be applied to the Refinery in the State of Kerala also. This is a matter of internal adjustments which the Management is directly concerned with and in the case of the Refinery in the State of Kerala, the negotiations are done by the Management having regional control over the affairs of the Company. The caveat so put forth by the petitioner is also of no avail, for reason of the conclusions arrived herein before. The functions of the Management are best left to them and a Trade Union cannot dictate terms or claim monopoly to be participated in the conciliation proceedings under the ID Act. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.