THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.6422 of 2010 Dated: 25.03.2010 Between: G.Yadagiri and others. .. Petitioners. And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner/Special Officer office at Tank Bund, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents. ORDER: Questioning the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing notice dated 12.03.2010, proposing to conduct elections to determine the majority union in the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, the present writ petition is filed. Under the said notice dated 12.03.2010, the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad, was appointed as the Verification Officer/Returning Officer to conduct verification/election under the Code of Discipline in the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The said notice was issued to 23 eligible trade unions calling upon them to submit certain documents. Of these 23 eligible trade unions, only nine submitted the documents and records, and came forward to contest the election. The Returning Officer and Joint Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad, declared 27.03.2010 as the date of secret ballot to determine the majority union in the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Petitioners, eight in number, are all employees of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. It is their case that, without their names being included in the voters’ list, the election to recognize the majority union in the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation was scheduled to be held on 27.03.2010. The petitioners would seek postponement of the election till the voters’ list was properly prepared, including their names in it. No statutory rule or provision which enables the petitioners to claim, as of right, that the election for recognizing the majority union in GHMC should be deferred till the voters’ list is finalized, has been brought to the notice of this Court. The impugned notice is issued under the Code of Discipline. As the various clauses in the Code of Discipline do not have statutory force, they cannot be enforced in Writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The relief sought for in the writ petition cannot, therefore, be granted. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. Needless to state that this order does not preclude the petitioners from availing such other remedies as are available to them in law. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 25.03.2010 v v/mrkr