KARBHARI AND OTHERS versus DEEPAK V. CHENGEDE AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 924 · Decided: 30-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
924
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10  S.C.R.
                  KARBHARI AND OTHERS
   v.
        DEEPAK V. CHENGEDE AND OTHERS
   (Civil Appeal No.5936 of 2019)
   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 –
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
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
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
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
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
reservation emanating either from the governing Statute or the
[2019] 10 S.C.R. 924
 924
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
925
Constitution of the Sabha, the Election Programme cannot by itself,
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
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,
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. The
Industrial Court as well as the High Court were completely
justified in taking the view as aforesaid. [Paras 12, 14 and 15]
[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
– distinguished.
 Case Law Reference
[1964] 2 SCR 567
   distinguished
Para 12
[1983] 1 SCR 922
   distinguished
Para 13
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.
 KARBHARI AND OTHERS  v.  DEEPAK V. CHENGEDE
AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
926
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10  S.C.R.
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
UDAY UM

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.