We do not have a trade union so who represents a trade union and is there any process?

Dear Manidha,
If you go through the provisions of the Act, it is crystal clear that it is mandatory to get certified standing orders in terms of the process and procedure as laid down in the Act and State/central Rules as per its applicability. Failure to get it certified is punishable offense.
But as I pointed out earlier, if you follow the MSOs, it is adequate.
I have not come across any prosecution against any organization yet by the authorities for non- certification and perhaps Mr Umakanthan , who has served in that authority , can throw more light on this aspect.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR- Consultant.

Thank you very much for clarifying Mr. Vinayak. This helps.
Warm Regards,
Manisha

Dear All
++++++++++++++ Thanks for your inputs. Wish a happy and prosperous festival of lights, DIWALI +++++++++++++

In case, if you are not proceeding towards enacting MSO/SO or unionised set up, an alternative arrangements may be made to set up a mechanism, in the form of 'Grievance Cell' comprising employer's & employees' rep. & Appellate Committee to deal with grievances raised & complaints received. This type of set up team are functional in govt. & quasi-govt.institutions.

Dear All,
In continuation to my query in this post, need your advice/suggestions on the below points please.
1. How does a Certifying Officer decide on the number of employees he would like to meet to elect the three workmen representatives.
2. Can the management suggest the Certifying Officer about the employees who can be part of this meeting?
3. If for some reason the workmen representatives resigns from the organization or would want to discontinue being a representative then who is obliged to inform the Certifying Officer and what is the generally the next step in this situation?
4. Can the HR/Employee Relations team who are involved in drafting the standing orders be part of the meeting for electing the workmen representative?
Request your advice please.
Warm Regards,
Manisha

Certain humble words of clarification as suggested by our friend Mr.Vinayak Nagarkar in his post dated 29-10-2018.
In the first place, the history of no penal action against the violation/non-compliance of any explicit provision of a Law so far may be indicative of the laxity of enforcement but can not be construed as an implied sanction or precedent for continued non-compliance forever.
Had the Legislature thought that the permanent adoption of the MSO is sufficient compliance, no necessity for the introduction of exclusive provisions for certification and amendment nor to have captioned Sec. 12-A of the Act as " Temporary application of model Standing orders". Similarly, it is not at all warranted to provide for penal provisions including enhanced punishment for continuing offence.
MSOs are simply guidelines to be followed while drafting and certifying Standing Orders befitting the peculiar nature of the activities of the industrial establishment concerned. Even an employer who has already got an CSO can not simply implement the provisions of the subsequent amendment in the MSO without amending his existing CSO.
The practical difficulties highlighted in the process of certification would pale into insiginificance if the proposed conditions of service are fair and legal in all respects. I am of the firm view that if an employer treats a trade union as a parallel institution of fostering amity between the Capital and Labor, he need not be scared of its lawful differences in matters of employment including the certification or amendment of standing orders.
For her latest queries, Manisha may refer to rule 6 of the IE(SO)Central Rules or the corresponding Rules of her State.