JUDGMENT : Arijit Banerjee, J. The petitioner is a registered trade union of which the members are civilian workmen at the Kalaikunda Air Force Base under the Military Engineering Service Department. The petitioner challenges a notice dated 5th November, 2018 issued by Shri R Durga Shyam, EE, Garrison Engineer (AF) Kalaikunda for election of members of the Works Committee. Although, the said notice notified 24th November, 2018 as the date of election, I am told that the election has been re-scheduled for 11th December, 2018 and has not yet been held. 2. Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 mandates constitution of Works Committee in case of any industrial establishment in which hundred or more workmen are employed or have been employed on any day in the preceding twelve months. Section 3 of the said Act reads as follows:- "(1) In the case of any industrial establishment in which one hundred or more workmen are employed or have been employed on any day in the preceding twelve months, the appropriate Government may by general or special order require the employer to constitute in the prescribed manner a Works Committee consisting of representatives of employers and workmen engaged in the establishment so however that the number of representatives of workmen on the Committee shall not be less than the number of representatives of the employer. The representatives of the workmen shall be chosen in the prescribed manner from among the workmen engaged in the establishment and in consultation with their trade union, if any, registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 (16 of 1926). (2) It shall be the duty of the Works Committee to promote measures for securing and preserving amity and good relations between the employer and workmen and, to that end, to comment upon matters of their common interest or concern and endeavour to compose any material difference of opinion in respect of such matters." 3. The short grievance of the petitioner is that the Kalaikunda constituency could not be sub-divided into seven constituencies for the purpose of holding election as has been sought to be done by the impugned notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Rule 42 of the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules, 1957. Rule 42 reads as follows:- "Group of workmen's representatives. The short grievance of the petitioner is that the Kalaikunda constituency could not be sub-divided into seven constituencies for the purpose of holding election as has been sought to be done by the impugned notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Rule 42 of the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules, 1957. Rule 42 reads as follows:- "Group of workmen's representatives. - On receipt of the information called for under rule 41, the employer shall provide for the election of workmen's representative on the committee in two groups- (1) those to be elected by the workmen of the establishment who are members of the registered trade union or unions, and (2) those to be elected by the workmen of the establishment who are not members of the registered trade union or unions, bearing the same proportion to each other as the union members in the establishment bear to the non-members: Provided that where more than half the workmen are members of the union or any one of the unions, no such division shall be made: Provided further that where a registered trade union neglects or fails to furnish the information called for under sub-rule (1) of rule 41 within one month of the date of the notice requiring it to furnish such information such union shall for the propose of this rule be treated as if it did not exist: Provided also that where any reference has been made by the employer under sub-rule (2) of rule 41, the election shall be held on receipt of the decision of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the past when election of the Works Committee for Kalaikunda Air Force Base was conducted, it was done by taking Kalaikunda to be a single constituency. Even for this year, a prior notice of election dated 30th July, 2018 was issued wherein Kalaikunda was taken to be one constituency. However, by subsequent order dated 9th August, 2018, the notice/Part - I Order dated 30th July, 2018 was cancelled. By a Memo dated 9th August, 2018, the process of election was kept in abeyance. Subsequently, the impugned notice/Part - I Order dated 5th November, 2018 was issued wherein Kalaikunda has been sought to be sub-divided into seven constituencies. This, according to the learned counsel, is contrary to Rule 42 of the 1957 Rules. By a Memo dated 9th August, 2018, the process of election was kept in abeyance. Subsequently, the impugned notice/Part - I Order dated 5th November, 2018 was issued wherein Kalaikunda has been sought to be sub-divided into seven constituencies. This, according to the learned counsel, is contrary to Rule 42 of the 1957 Rules. He also drew my attention to the notice of election of Works Committee for the Chandipur Station where the notice of election dated 14th July, 2018 notified the date of election to be 6th August, 2018 and Chandipur was taken to be one constituency. He submitted that all the civilian workmen at Kalaikunda Base are members of registered trade unions and, hence, as per the first proviso to Rule 42 of the 1957 Rules no sub-division could be made. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents obtained instructions and submitted that it is correct that all the civilian workmen at the Kalaikunda Base who are 296 in number, are members of registered trade unions being the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Although, he submitted that the first proviso to the 1957 Rules shall not apply to the facts of this case, he could not advance any cogent reason in support of such submission. However, to be fair to him, he left it to the Court to pass an appropriate order. 6. It is not in dispute that all the civilian workmen at the Kalaikunda Base are members of registered trade unions. In the case of Union of India and another Versus M.T.S.S.D Workers Union and others reported in, (1988) 1 SCC 640 . Rules 39, 41 and 42 of the 1957 Rules came up for consideration. Rule 42 has been extracted above. Rules 39 and 41 read as follows:- "39. Number of members. - The number of members constituting the Committee shall be fixed so as to afford representation to the various categories, groups and classes of workmen engaged in, and to the section, shops or departments of the establishment : Provided that the total number of members shall not exceed twenty: Provided further that the number of representatives of the workmen shall not be less than the number of representatives of the employer." 41. Consultation with trade unions. Consultation with trade unions. - (1) Where any workmen of an establishment are members of a registered trade union the employer shall ask the union to inform him in writing- (a) how many of the workmen are members of the union; and (b) how their membership is distributed among the sections, shops or departments of the establishment. (2) Where an employer has reason to believe that the information furnished to him under sub-rule (1) by any trade union is false, he may, after informing the union, refer the matter to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) concerned for his decision; and the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), after hearing the parties, shall decide the matter and his decision shall be final." 7. It was argued on behalf of the Union of India that Rule 39 talks of the number of members to constitute a Works Committee and it has been provided that the number should be fixed so as to ensure that representation could be made in the Committee of workers engaged in different sections and departments of the establishment. It was contended that it was because of this that the management chose to distribute the constituencies in such a manner that there may be representatives in the Works Committee of different sections and departments of the establishment. However, this argument was negated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observing that it is clear that Rule 39 does not talk of distribution of constituencies. 8. As regards Rule 42, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that because of the first proviso to the said Rule, where more than half of the workmen are members of a Trade Union or any one of the Unions, no division of constituency will be made. Where in an industry or an establishment the majority of the workers are in one union or the other, the distribution as provided in Rule 42 will not be necessary and it will only be one constituency. The Hon'ble Court observed that the scheme of Rule 42 clearly goes to show where there is any registered trade unions representing majority of workers, the question of distribution of constituency does not arise. The Hon'ble Court observed that the scheme of Rule 42 clearly goes to show where there is any registered trade unions representing majority of workers, the question of distribution of constituency does not arise. The Hon'ble Court finally observed in Paragraph 12 of the judgment as follows:- "It is therefore clear that the scheme of these Rules for constitution of Works Committees clearly provide: (a) where there is a registered trade union having more than 50 per cent membership of the workers in that establishment the total number of members of the Works Committee will be elected without distribution of any constituencies: (b) if in an industry no trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act represents more than 50 per cent of the members then only the election will be held in two constituencies, one from the members of the registered trade union or unions and the other from non-members of the trade unions and it is only in this contingency it is further provided that if the employer thinks proper he may further sub-divide the constituency into department, section or shed (sic shop). This clearly indicates that there may be a situation in an particular establishment where some section may have no membership of any trade union at all whereas in other sections there may be membership of trade unions then if under Rule 42 it has to divide in two constituencies that is members of the registered trade union and non-members. It may further sub-divide in order to provide for representation to any section of workmen who have no representation in any trade union at all. It is therefore clear that when there is a registered trade union in an establishment having more than 50 per cent membership this exercise under Rule 43 is futile and is not called for as in this case as admittedly the respondent union's membership is more than 50 per cent. The distribution of constituencies under Rule 42 is not contemplated and therefore there is no occasion for Rule 43 or proviso therein to come into operation. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the judgment of the High Court is correct and we see no reason to interfere with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed. In the Circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs." 9. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the judgment of the High Court is correct and we see no reason to interfere with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed. In the Circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs." 9. The law has, thus, been clearly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As in the present case, all the civilian workmen at the Kalaikunda are members of registered trade unions, no question of distribution/division of constituencies arise. The impugned notice is contrary to Rule 42 of the 1957, Rules and also violative of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Versus M.T.S.S.D Workers' Union and others (supra). The notice is set aside. A fresh notice shall be issued by the authorities strictly adhering to Rule 42 of the 1957 Rules treating Kalaikunda as one constituency. It is desirable that the process of election of the Works Committee be completed at an early date and preferably by the middle of January, 2019. The Works Committee has an important role to play in preserving amicable relationship between the employer and the workmen and in promoting industrial peace. 10. Since I have not called for affidavits the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to be admitted by the respondents. 11. W.P. No. 22394 (W) of 2018 is accordingly disposed of.