Civil Appeal No. 5936 of 2019 @ SLP (Civil)No.27698 of 2018 Karbhari and others Vs. Deepak V. Chengede and others

1

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.     5936   OF 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)No. 27698 of 2018)

KARBHARI AND OTHERS …Appellants

VERSUS

DEEPAK V. CHENGEDE AND OTHERS …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  challenges  the  judgment  and  final  order  dated

12.09.2018 passed by the High Court1 dismissing Writ Petition No.5599 of

2018 preferred by the appellants herein.

3. Kopargaon Taluka Sakhar Kamgar 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 Act.   Clauses 10

1 High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad 2 The Trade Unions Act, 1926

Civil Appeal No. 5936 of 2019 @ SLP (Civil)No.27698 of 2018 Karbhari and others Vs. Deepak V. Chengede and others

2

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  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.

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 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 filled by a by- election from the constituency represented by 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

prescribed is one delegate for every 30 members and the elections are to

Civil Appeal No. 5936 of 2019 @ SLP (Civil)No.27698 of 2018 Karbhari and others Vs. Deepak V. Chengede and others

3

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 from

seven Units, namely, Sanjivani Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Kale Sahakari

Sakhar Karkhana (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  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 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 be

Civil Appeal No. 5936 of 2019 @ SLP (Civil)No.27698 of 2018 Karbhari and others Vs. Deepak V. Chengede and others

4

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:

“Vice -President Seat-7     1 for each branch

(A) Qualification  for  candidate:  worker  from  concerned branch  or  honorary member of the union.

(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.

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 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.”

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

Civil Appeal No. 5936 of 2019 @ SLP (Civil)No.27698 of 2018 Karbhari and others Vs. Deepak V. Chengede and others

5

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.

C)  Voters: members  of  general  council  from concerned branch.

B. Male Executive members: Seats - 43 Distribution of 43 seats:

1. Sanjivani branch 15 2. Gaumtanaar branch 12 3. Sakarwadi branch 3 4. Changdevnagar branch 6 5. Ganeshnagar branch 2 6. Laxmiwadi branch 2 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  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 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 accepted the

challenge  and  while  quashing  the  Election  Programme,  it  directed  as

under:

Civil Appeal No. 5936 of 2019 @ SLP (Civil)No.27698 of 2018 Karbhari and others Vs. Deepak V. Chengede and others

6

“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 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

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.

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

Secretaries independently and the Electoral College in that behalf would

be each of those units and not the General Body of members.

Civil Appeal No. 5936 of 2019 @ SLP (Civil)No.27698 of 2018 Karbhari and others Vs. Deepak V. Chengede and others

7

(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 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 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 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  — 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

3   (1964)  2 SCR  567 at 578

Civil Appeal No. 5936 of 2019 @ SLP (Civil)No.27698 of 2018 Karbhari and others Vs. Deepak V. Chengede and others

8

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 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 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:

“7.   ………    The  right  to  apply  for  winding  up  of  a company 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 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  facts  and  the  circumstances  in  which  the  above-mentioned

observations  were  made  by  this  Court  were  completely  distinct  and

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

4   (1983) 1 SCC 228

Civil Appeal No. 5936 of 2019 @ SLP (Civil)No.27698 of 2018 Karbhari and others Vs. Deepak V. Chengede and others

9

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 different dimension, whereas we 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 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  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

Civil Appeal No. 5936 of 2019 @ SLP (Civil)No.27698 of 2018 Karbhari and others Vs. Deepak V. Chengede and others

10

the  submissions  advanced  by  the  learned  Senior  Counsel  for  the

appellants.  This appeal is consequently dismissed.  No costs.

…………………..J. [Uday Umesh Lalit]

…………………..J. [Vineet Saran]

     New Delhi; July 30, 2019.