ivil Appeal No 2483 of 1982
From the Judgment and Order dated 52
1982 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc
Writ Petition No 1744 of 1982
Gobind Mukhoty and US Prasad for the Appellants
Ms Rachna Gupta Ms Rani Chhabra and MC Dhingra for the Respondents
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by Appellant is a Society registered under the  21 of 1860
Five persons of whom some are respondents before us instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge Varanasi challenging the election of the Manag ing Committee and other elected officers of the appellant and asked for rendition of accounts
This suit of 1981 is still pending
We are now concerned with the correctness of the finding on the preliminary issue as to whether such a suit is maintainable in the Civil Court
The defendants  objection to the maintainability is grounded upon the provi sions contained in Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act
The Courts below have taken the view that the suit is not barred
That is why the defendants are here by special leave
973 A litigant having a grievance of a civil nature has independently of any statute a right to institute a suit in the civil court unless its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred
The position is well settled that exclu sion of jurisdiction of the civil court is not to be readily inferred and such exclusion must be either expressly or implied
Reliance has been placed by Mr Mukhoty before us on the ratio of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in KS Venkataraman  Company vs State of Madras  where reference has been made to the Privy Coun cil case in Raleigh Investment Company Limited vs The Gover nor General in Council
It has been laid down that the Civil Court s jurisdiction would be presumed unless the contrary is indicated
Mr Mukhoty has also relied upon two other decisions being Ganga Bai vs Vijay Kumar and Others  and Dhula bhai and Others vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another   The legal position thus seems to be clear and it is not necessary to quote further authorities
What is really in dispute is the application of the rule to the facts of the case
To ascertain whether the suit would be barred the effect of the provisions of Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act with the U P amendments has to be considered
These sections provide 23
Audit 1 Without prejudice to the provisions of sub section 2 of Section 4 or of Section 22 where the Regis trar is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do he may by written order require any society to furnish its accounts or a copy of a statement of receipts and ex penditure for any particular year duly audited by a Char tered Accountant Provided that the Registrar may at the request of society permit it to have such accounts and statement audit ed by any other person by him
2 If the society fails to furnish the documents referred to in sub section 1 within the period specified in the order or with such extended period as the Registrar may from time to time allow the Registrar may cause the accounts of such society audited for the said year and may recover the cost of such audit from that society
3 If the society neglects or refuses to make its account or 974 other documents available for audit under sub section 2 or in the opinion of the Registrar otherwise fails to provide requisite facilities to have the audit made with due expedition the Registrar may proceed to take action under Section 24
Disputes regarding election of office bearers 1 The prescribed authority may on a reference made to it by the Registrar or by at least one fourth of the members of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh hear and decide in a summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of the elec tion or continuance in office of an office bearer of such society and may pass such orders in respect thereof as it deems fit Provided that the election of an office bearer shall be set aside where the prescribed authority is satis fied a that any corrupt practice has been committed by such office bearer or b that the nomination of any candidate has been improperly rejected or c that the result of the election in so far as it concerns such office bearer has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination or by the improper reception refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void or by any non compliance with the provisions of any rules of the society
Explanation I A person shall be deemed to have commit ted a corrupt practice who directly or indirectly by him self or by any other person i induces or attempts to induce by fraud intentional misrepresentation coercion or threat of injury any elector to give or to refrain from giving a vote in favour of any candidate or any person to stand or not to stand as or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at the election ii with a view to inducing any elector to give or to refrain from giving a vote in favour of any candidate or to inducing any 975 person to stand or not to stand as or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at the election offers or gives any money or valuable consideration or any place of employment or holds out any promise of individual advantage or profit to any person iii abets within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code the doing of any of the acts specified in clause i and ii iv induces or attempts to induce a candidate or elector to believe that he or any person in whom he is interested will become or will be rendered an object of divine dis pleasure or spiritual censure v canvasses on grounds of caste community sect or reli gion vi commits such other practice as the Government may prescribe to be a corrupt practice
Explanation II A promise of individual advantage or profit to a person  includes a promise for the benefit of the person himself or of any one in which he is interested
Explanation III The State Government may prescribe the procedure for hearing and decision of doubts or disputes in respect of such elections and make provision in respect of any other matter relating to such elections for which insuf ficient provisions exists in this Act or in the rules of the society
2 Where by an order made under sub section 1 an election is set aside or an office bearer is held no longer entitled to continue in office or where the Registrar is satisfied that any election of office bearers of a society has not been held within the time specified in the rules of that society he may call meeting of the general body of such society for electing such office bearer or office bearers and such meeting shall be presided over and be conducted by the Registrar or by any officer authorised by him in this behalf and the provisions in the rules of the society relating to meetings and elections shall apply to such meeting and election with necessary modifications
3 Where a meeting is called by the Registrar under sub section no other meeting shall be called for the purpose of election by any other authority or any person claiming to be an office bearer of the society
976 Explanation For the purposes of this section the expres sion prescribed authority  means an officer or court autho rised in this behalf by the State Government by notification published in the Official Gazette
We are of the view that provisions of Section 23 are con fined to audit and have nothing to do with the relief of rendition of accounts
No more is necessary to be said about that relief
Section 25 deals with disputes regarding chal lenge to the eviction of office bearers
The maintainability of dispute within the purview of that Section is hedged with conditions and unless such requirement is fulfilled a statutory dispute would not be maintainable
The present action in the Civil Court is by some of the members who perhaps would not satisfy the requirements laid down in Section 25
It cannot be contended that Section 25 having provided the pre conditions on the satisfaction of which a dispute within the purview of that Section would be main tainable before the Registrar takes away the right of Mem bers of the Society to claim relief otherwise outside the purview of Section 25 on the basis of their right to seek remedy for their grievance
It is not the contention of Mr Mukhoty that the relief claimed is not one which would come within the ambit of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Proce dure
That being so we are of the view that the bar of Section 25 is not applicable to the facts of the case
Therefore the conclusion reached in the Courts below is correct and the suit is maintainable
We pointed out to Mr Mukhoty that the relief against election of office bearers must have become infructuous with the passage of time as the election is annual
It is for the trial Court now to dispose of the suit taking into consider ation the changes in the situations that may be brought before it
We dismiss the appeal and direct the trial court to expedite the disposal of the suit
No costs
TNA Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The contract workers engaged by the management of the Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd Jamshedpur in the perma nent and regular nature of work before February 11 1981 in 1 transportation of materials within the plant which was not dependent on outside supply 2 processes connected with manufacturing process 3 removal and handling of waste products and 4 sweeping and cleaning of machines etc sought permanent employment under the principal em ployer
The dispute was referred by the State Government under section 10 of the to the Industrial Tribunal
The Tribunal held that the workmen constituted the contract labour and therefore the reference was not main tainable
It further held that action if any had to be taken under section 10 of the  power to take steps for which vested in the State Government and not in the Tribunal
The writ petition challenging the award was dismissed by the High Court in limine
In the appeal by special leave it was brought to the notice of the Court on behalf of the management that con tract labour was now confined to item 3 only
Disposing of the appeal the Court ordered 1
The reference to the Tribunal shall now read Wheth er the contract workers engaged by the management of the Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd Jamshedpur in the perma nent and regular nature of work before 1121981 are enti tled to permanent employment in 978 regard to items 1 2 and 4 under the principal employer
980B C 2
The State Government to take its own decision within three months under the provisions of the in regard to item No 3 as to whether the contract labour employment should be terminated
980D 3
The Tribunal to dispose of the dispute within six months
980F