Case: KARBHARI AND OTHERS Vs. DEEPAK V. CHENGEDE AND OTHERS

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:?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. (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 Kabarwala (1964) 2 SCR 567 at 578 , 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 contents of a plaint and it might very well be that a counterclaim 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 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:reasonable manner.? 13. Referring to the decision of this Court reported in National Textile Workers? Union and others v. P.R. Ramakrishnan and others (1983) 1 SCC 228 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 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 the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]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 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 suchThe Industrial Court as well as the High Court were completely justified in taking the view as aforesaid. We, therefore, find no merit in the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants.