KARBHARI AND OTHERSversusDEEPAK V. CHENGEDE AND OTHERS

924                      [2019]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT   10 S.C.R. 924              [2019] 10 S.C.R.


A                         KARBHARI AND OTHERS
                                        v.
                   DEEPAK V. CHENGEDE AND OTHERS
                         (Civil Appeal No.5936 of 2019)
B                                JULY 30, 2019
           [UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
             Trade Unions Act, 1926 – Kopargaon Taluka Sakhar Kamgar
      Sabha was registered as Representative Union under the Act and
      was governed by its Constitution and the provisions of the Act –
C
      Members of the Sabha come from seven Units – Matters concerning
      election to the General Council and the Managing Committee of
      the Sabha were pending in the High Court – High Court directed
      that the election be held as per the Constitution of the Sabha –
      Election Officer declared the election programme stipulating Unit
D     wise reservation to the posts of Vice-Presidents and Secretaries
      wherein all seven units would elect Vice-Presidents and Secretaries
      independently and the Electoral College in that behalf would be
      each of those units and not the General Body of members and further,
      8 seats would be reserved for “women” while rest 43 seats of
      Executive Members would be reserved for “men” – Industrial Court
E
      quashed the Election Programme – Appellants, members of the
      Sabha challenged the decision – Dismissed – Plea of appellants
      that the stipulations made by the Election Officer carving out
      Electoral Colleges and concept of reservation were though not
      consistent with the Constitution of the Sabha however, there was no
F     prohibition to adopt such ideas, which were completely laudable
      and reasonable – Held: However laudable may be the objectives,
      the Election Officer could not have gone beyond the confines of
      the Constitution of the Sabha and could not have imported ideas
      which were not rooted in the Constitution of the Sabha – As a matter
      of practice, various panels contesting elections to the Sabha were
G
      ensuring that there be equitable distribution and every unit was
      adequately represented, but that idea cannot be implemented
      through Election Programme – Programme must be completely in
      accord with the governing Statute and the Constitution of the Sabha
      – In the absence of the idea of unit wise representation and
H     reservation emanating either from the governing Statute or the
                                       924
       KARBHARI AND OTHERS v. DEEPAK V. CHENGEDE                        925
                     AND OTHERS

Constitution of the Sabha, the Election Programme cannot by itself,     A
invent and implement such idea – Industrial Court as well as the
High Court were completely justified in taking the view as aforesaid.
        Dismissing the appeal, the Court
       HELD 1.1 The stipulations made by the Election Officer
carving out Electoral Colleges and concept of reservation were          B
not consistent with the Constitution of the Sabha. However
laudable may be the objectives, the Election Officer could not
have gone beyond the confines of the Constitution of the Sabha
and could not have imported ideas which were not rooted in the
Constitution of the Sabha. It may be that as a matter of practice,      C
various panels which contested elections to the Sabha, were
ensuring that there be equitable distribution and every unit was
adequately represented. But that idea cannot be implemented
through Election Programme. The Programme must be
completely in accord with the governing Statute and the
Constitution of the Sabha. In the absence of the idea of unit wise      D
representation and reservation emanating either from the
governing Statute or the Constitution of the Sabha, the Election
Programme cannot by itself, invent and implement such idea. The
Industrial Court as well as the High Court were completely
justified in taking the view as aforesaid. [Paras 12, 14 and 15]        E
[930-B-C; 931-E-G]
        Laxmidas Dayabhai Kabarwala v. Nanabhai Chunilal
        Kabarwala [1964] 2 SCR 567; National Textile
        Workers’ Union and Others v. P.R. Ramakrishnan and
        Others (1983) 1 SCC 228 : [1983] 1 SCR 922                      F
        – distinguished.
                        Case Law Reference
        [1964] 2 SCR 567          distinguished        Para 12
        [1983] 1 SCR 922          distinguished        Para 13
                                                                        G
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.5936 of
2019
      From the Judgment and Order dated 12.09.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition
No. 5599 of 2018.                                                       H
926                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 10 S.C.R.


A           B. H. Marlapalle, Sr. Adv., Ms. Astha Prasad, Ajit Wagh, Apoorv
      Shukla, Ms. Astha Prasad, Advs. for the Appellants.
            Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv, Ms. Gwen Karthika, Ms. Abha R. Sharma,
      Advs. for the Respondents.
                The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
                UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
                1. Leave granted.
            2. This appeal challenges the judgment and final order dated
      12.09.2018 passed by the High Court1dismissing Writ Petition No.5599
C     of 2018 preferred by the appellants herein.
             3. Kopargaon Taluka SakharKamgar Sabha (hereinafter referred
      to as ‘the Sabha’ for short) was registered on 30.06.1951 as a
      Representative Union under the provisions of the Act2. The affairs of
      the Sabha are governed by its Constitution and by the provisions of the
D     Act. Clauses 10 and 11 of the Constitution deal with the Managing
      Committee of the Sabha while clause 15 deals with the General Council
      of the Sabha. Said clauses are to the following effect:
                “Clause 10 The Managing Committee of the Sabha shall consist
                of not more than 70 members, including one President, not more
E               than Seven Vice-Presidents, one General Secretary and not more
                than Seven Secretaries, one Treasurer and Two Legal Advisers,
                elected at the Annual General Meeting.
                Clause 11. The Management of the Sabha shall be vested in the
                Managing Committee of the Sabha elected by the General Council.
F               Clause 15.(a) The General Council of the Sabha shall consist of
                delegates elected in a meeting of members of each factory called
                for the purpose, on the basis of one delegate for every 30 members
                ordinary or honorary of the Sabha from each factory (or a part
                thereof above 20) provided that minimum representation shall be
G               one.
                (b) The election of the delegates of the General Council of Sabha
                shall be held in March or April after every five years, provided
                that in case of a vacancy occurring during the years it shall be
      1
          High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad
      2
H         The Trade Unions Act, 1926
     KARBHARI AND OTHERS v. DEEPAK V. CHENGEDE                                927
         AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

      filled by a by-election from the constituency represented by            A
      vacating members.
      (c) The delegates of the General Council elected by the members
      shall continue to be delegates until replaced by the members.”
       4. Thus, the members of the Sabha would first elect the delegates
to the General Council of the Sabha. In terms of Clause 15(a) the ratio       B
prescribed is one delegate for every 30 members and the elections are
to be held every five years. Further, in terms of Clauses 10 and 11, the
General Council, in turn, would elect the Managing Committee of the
Sabha consisting of not more than 70 members.
        5. It is a matter of record that the members of the Sabha come        C
from seven Units, namely, SanjivaniSahakariSakharKarkhana, Kale
SahakariSakharKarkhana (Kolapewadi), Changdeonagar, Sakarwadi,
Laxmiwadi, Ganeshnagar and Godavari Bio Refinaries and the strength
of workers of each of these seven units is 1428, 1171, 627, 185, 247, 232
and 277 respectively. Though the Constitution of the Sabha does not           D
strictly prescribe any Unit wise representation, it appears that by way of
consistent practice out of 142 delegates to be elected to the General
Council the unit wise composition of the delegates has been 48, 39, 21, 6,
9, 8 and 11 respectively insofar as all the aforesaid seven units are
concerned. It also appears to be a matter of practice that seven Vice
Presidents and seven Secretaries would be elected from and amongst            E
the members of each of those seven units thereby giving equitable
representation to individual units.
       6. The matters concerning election to the General Council and
the Managing Committee of the Sabha were pending in the High Court
and by its order dated 23.04.2018 the High Court directed that the election   F
be held as per the Constitution of the Sabha. The process was, therefore,
undertaken and the Election Officer declared the election programme
on 07.05.2018. Insofar as the elections to the posts of seven Vice
Presidents and seven Secretaries are concerned, true translation of the
election programme was as under:                                              G
      “Vice -President            Seat-7           1 for each branch
      (A) Qualification for candidate: worker from concerned branch
      or honorary member of the union.

                                                                              H
928            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 10 S.C.R.


A           (B) Requirement of application of the candidate:
                 Any 1 member elected from concerned branch on general
            council as proposer and Any 1 member elected from concerned
            branch on general council as seconder.
            (C) Voters: members of general council from concerned branch.
B
            Secretary                 Seat – 7         1 for each branch
            (A) Qualification for candidate: Worker member from concerned
            branch or honorary member of the union.
            (B) Requirement of application of the candidate: Any 1 member
C           elected from concerned branch on general council as proposer
            and Any 1 member elected from concerned branch on general
            council as seconder.
            (C) Voters: members of general council from concerned branch.”

D
              7. The Election Officer also declared that eight seats would be
      reserved for “women” while rest 43 seats of Executive Members would
      be reserved for “men”. The stipulation in that behalf was as under:
            “A. Women constituency:                    Seats- 8
E           A) Qualification for candidate: any women member or honorary
            woman member.
            B) Requirement of application of the candidate: Any 1 woman
            member of general council as proposer and Any 1 woman member
            of general council as seconder.
F           C) Voters: members of general council from concerned branch.
            B. Male Executive members: Seats - 43
               Distribution of 43 seats:
            1. Sanjivani branch               15
G           2. Gaumtanaar branch              12
            3. Sakarwadi branch               3
            4. Changdevnagar branch           6
            5. Ganeshnagar branch             2
H
    KARBHARI AND OTHERS v. DEEPAK V. CHENGEDE                                 929
        AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

      6.   Laxmiwadi branch               2                                   A
      7. Godavari bio refineries          3
      Qualification for candidate: Any member from concerned branch
      and general council member of concerned branch.
      Requirement for application of the candidate: 1 member elected          B
      from concerned branch on general council as proposer and 1
      member as seconder.
      Voters: members of general council from concerned branch (only
      for same branch).”
       8. The challenge to the Election Programme was raised                  C
immediately before the Industrial Court at Ahmednagar by certain
members of the Sabha submitting, inter alia, that the Election Programme
and the stipulation therein were contrary to the provisions of the
Constitution of the Sabha and as such the Programme deserved to be
quashed. The Industrial Court, Ahmednagar by its order dated 05.06.2018       D
accepted the challenge and while quashing the Election Programme,it
directed as under:
      “The Election Officer shall conduct the election as per constitution
      without insisting for undertaking-wise election for the post of Vice-
      President and Secretary. There shall be no reservation for
                                                                              E
      women.”
      9. The appellants who are also members of the Sabha, challenged
the decision of the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar by filing Writ Petition
No.5599 of 2018 in the High Court which by its judgment and order
presently under appeal found that no interference was called for and
                                                                              F
dismissed the writ petition.
       10. In this appeal challenging the correctness of the decision of
the High Court, we heard Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, learned Senior Counsel
for the appellants and Mr. Vinay Navare, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents.
                                                                              G
       11. The order of the Election Officer contemplated following
stipulations which were not part of the Constitution of the Sabha:
      (a) Unit wise reservation to the posts of Vice-Presidents and
Secretaries whereunder all seven units would elect Vice-Presidents and
                                                                              H
930               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 10 S.C.R.


A     Secretaries independently and the Electoral College in that behalf would
      be each of those units and not the General Body of members.
             (b) Certain reservation was stipulated for women, namely, eight
      seats were reserved for women. Though the Electoral College was
      supposed to be members from the concerned unit or branch, it was not
B     clear how seven units could be electing eight women executive members.
             12. Mr. Marlapalle, learned Senior Counsel fairly accepted that
      the stipulations made by the Election Officer carving out Electoral
      Colleges and concept of reservation as mentioned above were not
      consistent with the Constitution of the Sabha. He however submitted
C     that the idea of having separate Electoral Colleges for each of those
      seven units would give adequate representation to every unit. According
      to him, though the Constitution of the Sabha may be completely silent
      insofar as those issues are concerned, there was no prohibition to adopt
      such ideas, which in any case, were completely laudable and reasonable.
      It was submitted by him that in certain cases what is not prohibited can
D     certainly be permitted. He relied upon the decision of this Court reported
      in Laxmidas Dayabhai Kabarwala v. Nanabhai Chunilal Kabarwala3,
      the relevant portion being:-
               “11. The question has therefore to be considered on principle as
               to whether there is anything in law — statutory or otherwise —
E              which precludes a court from treating a counter-claim as a plaint
               in a cross-suit. We are unable to see any. No doubt, the Civil
               Procedure Code prescribes the contents of a plaint and it might
               very well be that a counter-claim which is to be treated as a
               cross-suit might not conform to all these requirements but this by
F              itself is not sufficient to deny to the Court the power and the
               jurisdiction to read and construe the pleadings in a reasonable
               manner.”
             13. Referring to the decision of this Court reported in National
      Textile Workers’ Union and others v. P.R. Ramakrishnan and
G     others4 where the workers were given a right to be heard in winding up
      petition, Mr. Marlapalle, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following
      observations:

      3
          (1964) 2 SCR 567 at 578
      4
          (1983) 1 SCC 228
H
     KARBHARI AND OTHERS v. DEEPAK V. CHENGEDE                                  931
         AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

      “7. ……… The right to apply for winding up of a company                    A
      being a creature of statute, none other than those on whom the
      right to present a winding up petition is conferred by the statute
      can make an application for winding up a company and no such
      right having been conferred on the workers, they cannot prefer a
      winding up petition against a company. But from this exclusion of
                                                                                B
      the workers from the right to present a winding up petition, it does
      not follow as a necessary consequence that the workers have no
      right to appear and be heard in a winding up petition filed by one
      or more of the persons specified in Section 439.”
       14. The factsand the circumstances in which the above-mentioned
observations were made by this Court were completely distinct and               C
different. The first case concerned the power of the Court to grant
adequate relief while in the second case the issue was if in the ultimate
analysis the company was to be wound up, the workers would be
adversely affected and as such whether they should be given a right of
hearing in winding up proceedings or not. Those cases were of completely        D
different dimension, whereaswe are presently concerned with the issue
whether an election to a union of workers has to be in accordance with
its constitution or otherwise. However laudable may be the objectives,
the Election Officer could not have gone beyond the confines of the
Constitution of the Sabha and could not have imported ideas which were
not rooted in the Constitution of the Sabha. It may be that as a matter of      E
practice, various panels which contested elections to the Sabha, were
ensuring that there be equitable distribution and every unit was adequately
represented. But that idea cannot be implemented through Election
Programme. The Programme must be completely in accord with the
governing Statute and the Constitution of the Sabha. In the absence of          F
the idea of unit wise representation and reservation emanating either
from the governing Statute or the Constitution of the Sabha, the Election
Programme cannot by itself, invent and implement such idea.
        15. The Industrial Court as well as the High Court were completely
justified in taking the view as aforesaid. We, therefore, find no merit in      G
the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants. This appeal is consequently dismissed. No costs.


Divya Pandey                                                Appeal dismissed.

                                                                                H