JUDGMENT : N. Nagaresh, J. The petitioner is a registered Trade Union of workmen in the services of the 1st respondent-Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Limited. The writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P8 proceedings rejecting the request of the petitioner to conduct Referendum in Cochin Division (CD) of the 1st respondent-Company. 2. The petitioner states that the petitioner has requested the 2nd respondent-Chairman and Managing Director to take immediate steps to conduct Trade Union Referendum in the Cochin Division. As the respondents did not yield to the request, the petitioner approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.31287/2023. As per Ext.P7 judgment, this Court directed the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P2 representation. The 3rd respondent, however, rejected the representation as per Ext.P8. 3. In Ext.P8, it has been stated that the petitioner is not a signatory in Ext.P4 minutes and hence the petitioner cannot demand for conducting a Referendum. The petitioner states that the petitioner-Trade Union was registered only on 22.07.2022 and that is the reason why the petitioner is not a signatory to Ext.P4. The reasoning stated in Ext.P8 is without any logic. 4. Respondents 1 to 3 opposed the writ petition filing a counter affidavit. None of the fundamental rights of the petitioner has been infringed and therefore a writ petition is not maintainable, contended respondents 1 to 3. The respondents do not have a statutory duty to conduct Referendum. The petitioner has to establish that it has a legal right to seek for the performance of statutory duty by the respondents, to maintain this writ petition. 5. Respondents 1 to 3 stated that five Trade Unions are already recognised in the Company's Cochin Division. Respondents 1 to 3 further submitted that pursuant to the directions of this Court, the 4th respondent-Regional Joint Labour Commissioner (Central) held a Referendum through secret ballot on 05.04.2023 in Udyogamandal Division and out of the four Trade Unions which participated in the Referendum, three Trade Unions secured 20% or more of the total votes. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. 7. The prayer of the petitioner is to conduct a Referendum through secret ballot in the Cochin Division of the 1st respondent-Company in order to recognise representative Trade Unions. 8. Collective bargaining is the mode of work of Trade Unions. 7. The prayer of the petitioner is to conduct a Referendum through secret ballot in the Cochin Division of the 1st respondent-Company in order to recognise representative Trade Unions. 8. Collective bargaining is the mode of work of Trade Unions. It is to be ensured that the Trade Unions which takes up the issues concerning the service conditions of workmen truly represent the workmen employed in the establishment. When in an establishment there are more than one registered Trade Union, the question as to with whom the employer should negotiate or enter into bargaining assumes importance, because if the Trade Union which negotiates has as its members minority of the workmen / employees, the settlement, even if any arrived between the employer and such a Union, may not be acceptable to the majority and may not result industrial peace. 9. Who should be the sole bargaining agent, has been a matter of discussion and dispute. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the judgment in Food Corporation of India Staff Union v. Food Corporation of India and others [1995 Suppl 1 SCC 678] that the check off system which once prevailed in this domain has lost its appeal. The method of secret ballot is now being gradually accepted. 10. In the case of the 1st respondent, it is conceded that a Referendum by secret ballot has already been conducted in their Udyogamandal Division. No such Referendum has been conducted in the Cochin Division so far. In the facts of the case, I am of the view that the representative character of Trade Union functioning in the Cochin Division of the 1st respondent-Company has to be determined by a Referendum through secret ballot. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing respondents 1 to 4 to take necessary steps to hold Referendum by secret ballot in the Cochin Division of the 1st respondent-Company. The Referendum shall be conducted by respondents 1 to 3 under the supervision of the 4th respondent. Respondents 1 to 4 are directed to convene a preliminary meeting in order to conduct Referendum by secret ballot. The process of Referendum shall be completed as expeditiously as possible.