Sahakari Bank Karmachari Sangh Vs. the District Deputy Registrar, Co­operative Societies and ors. - Court Judgment

Ranjana Desai, J.

1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing forthwith.

2. The petitionerunion is a registered trade union (for convenience, 'the petitioner or the petitionerunion'). It claims to be a representative union in the Pandharpur Urban Coop. Bank Ltd. respondent 3 herein (for convenience, 'the said bank') for the local areas of Pandharpur Taluka under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, (for short, 'the Bombay Act'). Respondent 1 is the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Solapur District. He is also an Election Officer. His notification is impugned in this petition. Respondent 2 is the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies of Solapur District, who was the Election Officer in the election of the Board of Directors of the said bank held by respondent 1. The said bank is a Cooperative Bank registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, 'the MCS Act').

3. The case of the petitionerunion is that a dispute as to the appointment of workers' directors on the Board of Directors of the said bank arose as back as in 2002. After exhausting all available remedies, the petitionerunion had to file a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 3466 of 2002 in this Court seeking appropriate directions against the respondents directing them to appoint workers directors selected by the petitionerunion on the Board of Directors of the said bank. The said petition was admitted on 12/8/2002. An interim order was passed against respondents 1 and 2 directing them to notify the names of two persons who were nominated and selected by the petitionerunion to be on the Board of Directors as workers directors. Accordingly, they were taken on the Board of Directors for the period between 2002 to 2007.

4. It is the case of the petitionerunion that the impugned Notification dated 26/6/2007 is issued by the Election Returning Officer of the said Bank declaring the elections for the Board of Directors and the programme of election under Rule 56J Form No. M(3) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960 (for short, the said Rules'). By that notification, the concerned authority has declared the programme of election between the period 3/7/2007 to 6/8/2007.

5. According to the petitionerunion, the number of directors on the Board of Directors of the said bank was 19. As per Section 73BB, the petitionerunion was entitled to nominate two employees on the Board of Directors of the said bank as the workers representatives. However, since the employees nominated herein did not fall under the list of the reserved constituency, there was no special column for elections referring to the workers representatives in the impugned notification. The petitionerunion, therefore, addressed a letter dated 3/7/2007 to the Election Decision Authority inviting his attention to the provisions of Section 73BB of the MCS Act. The petitionerunion informed the Election Decision Authority that the petitionerunion being a representative union for the local areas of Pandharpur and Solapur, it was entitled to nominate two employees as workers' directors. The petitioner union communicated that it had nominated Mr. Anand Pandurang Utpat and Mr. Mohan Shankarrao Kulkarni, who were selected as workers directors and requested that their names be accepted and declared at the time of declaration of election results as the workers representatives. According to the petitionerunion, there was no response to the said letter. The petitionerunion, therefore, addressed letter dated 7/8/2007 to the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Solapur enclosing thereto a copy of the letter dated 3/8/2007 and requesting him to issue instructions to the Election Officer accordingly.

6. By a communication dated 7/8/2007 addressed by the Election Officer to the District Election Officer, Solapur, the District Election Officer was informed by the Election Officer of the said bank that the petitionerunion had sent two names of employees to be declared as workers directors on the Board of Directors of the said bank for the period 2007 to 2013. The Election Officer further informed the District Election Officer that Pandharpur Urban Coop. Bank Sevak Sangh, Pandharpur has challenged the recognition and representative character of the petitionerunion before the Labour Commissioner, Pune, by applying for cancellation, of the representative character. By letter dated 16/8/2007, the petitioner requested the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies that as per Section 73BB of the MCS Act names of Shri Utpat and Shri Kulkarni be declared in the notification and final notification be issued and, only thereafter, the election be held. According to the petitioner, in spite of this correspondence, election was declared by the Election Officer by issuing a notification without incorporating the names of the workers directors nominated by the petitioner union, which is a representative union and the sole bargaining agent under the Bombay Act. The petitionerunion has, therefore, inter alia, prayed for cancellation of the impugned Notification dated 26/6/2007 issued by the Election Officer and for a direction to issue a fresh notification or an additional notification declaring the reserved posts for workers representatives under Section 73BB of the MCS Act. The petitionerunion has further prayed that Notification dated 25/8/2007 declaring the results of elections of the post of Chairman and Vice Chairman be struck down as being contrary to the provisions of Rule 56A and 35 of the said Rules. The petitionerunion has further prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to take steps to appoint Mr. Anand Pandurang Utpat and Mr. Mohan Shankarrao Kulkarni on the Board of Directors of the said bank.

7. Affidavit in reply is filed by Shri Vidyadhar Mane, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Taluka Pandharpur. It is stated in the affidavit that election programme was conducted from 27/6/2007 to 6/8/2007 and the results were declared on 6/8/2007. The District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Solapur has notified all the elected members by order dated 13/8/2007. The affidavit further goes on to say that for the purposes of Section 73BB, the members of the Committee shall mean and include elected, appointed, nominated, coopted as well as exofficio members of the Committee, but it shall not include the representatives of the employees. It is further stated that therefore the representatives of the employees were not included in the notification. It is further stated that letters have been received from the petitionerunion and from the Pandharpur Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. Employees Sevak Sangh, which indicate that there is a dispute between the two. The affidavit further states that when there is a dispute between two unions, the seats reserved shall be filled by election by such employees from amongst themselves in the prescribed manner and, therefore, that decision was conveyed to the petitionerunion on 9/8/2007.

8. Affidavit in reply is also filed by Mr. Ashok Kumbhar, Election Officer of the said bank. It is stated in the affidavit that letter dated 3/7/2007 sent by the petitionerunion was forwarded to the District Election Officer for necessary action. It is further stated by Mr. Kumbhar that Pandharpur Urban Cooperative Bank Sevak Sangh, Pandharpur, submitted to him their application addressed to the Commissioner (Labour), Pune, regarding cancellation of representative character of the petitionerunion and he submitted that application also to the District Election Officer.

9. Affidavit in reply is also filed by Mr. Y.K. Kulkarni, General Manager and Authorized Officer of the said bank. It is, inter alia, stated in the affidavit that order dated 12/7/1997 passed by the Assistant Registrar under the Bombay Act registering the petitionerunion as a representative union under the Bombay Act and another order of registration of the petitionerunion as approved union are challenged by the said bank by filing appeal in the Industrial Court at Solapur and, hence, the status of the petitionerunion as the representative union is in dispute and consequently the petitionerunion is not entitled to claim the exclusive right to nominate any two employees of its choice as members of the Managing Committee of the said bank. It is further stated that in such a situation, the law provides for election of two representatives by all the employees of the said bank. It is further stated that the petitionerunion is recognized as a representative union only for the Pandharpur local area and for the remaining area of Solapur District, Solapur District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Union is the recognized union. The Collector was informed about this and, therefore, he was justified in not notifying the names of two persons nominated by the petitionerunion. It is alleged in the affidavit that majority of the employees of the said bank are not the members of the petitionerunion but are members of the Pandharpur Urban Cooperative Bank Sevak Sangh. As regards the order dated 12/8/2002 passed by this Court, it is stated that the said order only governed the election held in the year 2002 for the term 20022007. It was an interim order and is not binding on all further elections.

10. Before we note the rival contentions and deal with them, it must be stated that Mr. Godbole learned Counsel for the said bank wanted to tender affidavits of employees of the said bank stating that they do not want the two nominees of the petitionerunion to be their representatives. The affidavits were sought to be tendered in support of the submission that if any relief is granted to the petitionerunion that would be contrary to the legislative mandate. We made it clear to Mr. Godbole that we shall not permit any affidavits to be tendered in this Court at this belated stage and if affidavits are filed cognizance thereof will not be taken. In fact, on 14/2/2008, we passed an order to that effect. Surprisingly, despite this, the office has permitted the said bank to file affidavits. We make it clear that the said affidavits do not form part of the record.

11. Mr. Dharap, learned Counsel for the petitionerunion submitted that the impugned notification must be set aside as being illegal and as it is issued in the teeth of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2833 of 2003 delivered on 20/6/2003. Mr. Dharap contended that similar issue was raised before this Court in that case and the State was directed to issue appropriate directions to all District Collectors that while issuing a Notification under Rule 16 of the Election Rules for elections of the members of the Board of specified societies or such societies covered under Rule 16 of the Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, a separate notification for election of workers representatives' on the Board of Directors of such societies shall be issued in accordance with directions issued in the writ petition. Inasmuch as the impugned notification is issued in breach of the above judgment, according to Mr. Dharap, it must be set aside. Mr. Dharap also relied on order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3466 of 2006 filed by the petitioner union, where same issue was involved and whereby the respondents were directed to notify the names of two persons who were selected by the petitionerunion.

12. Mr. Dharap further submitted that a conjoint reading of both the Acts makes it clear that they complement each other and, hence, the term 'representativeunion' found in the Bombay Act will have to be understood as a recognized union for all practical purposes. He submitted that the words 'union or unions' used in the section are used with a purpose. He submitted that there may be an industry, where part of the industrial activity is governed by the Bombay Act and part of it is governed by the MRTU & PULP Act. In such cases, the local area where the Bombay Act applied would have a representative union and the other part would have a recognised union. Considering this possibility, the legislature has used the words 'union or unions'. Mr. Dharap took strong exception to the said said bank's attempt to tender in this Court affidavits of employees who claim to be members of Solapur Zilla Sahakari Bank Karmachari Sanghatana. He submitted that the name of this union does not appear in the affidavits in reply filed by the said bank or filed by the Government. Mr. Dharap submitted that assuming there is such a union, it does not fulfill the requirement of being registered as a representative union under the Bombay Act. Mr. Dharap submitted that the said bank's opposition to the petitioner's stand is malafide.

13. Mr. Dharap further submitted that if any dispute is to be raised about registration of a union as a representative union, the provision of Sections 15 and 16 of the Bombay Act will have to be adhered to. The employer has no right to make a grievance. There is no appeal filed by any of the unions under Section 20 of the Bombay Act. The appeal is filed by the said bank under Sections 20 and 24(A) of the Bombay Act. Such an appeal can be filed only by a party to a proceeding. The said bank was never and can never be a party to the proceedings pertaining to registration of the union as a representative union and, therefore, the appeals which are filed by the said bank are without substance. In fact, no dispute is pending as of today.

14. Mr. Dharap further submitted that interpretation sought to be put on Section 73BB by the said bank will disturb industrial harmony and peace and, therefore, this Court should reject it. In support of his submissions, Mr. Dharap relied on the judgments in Shramik Utkarsh Sabha v. Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd. 1995 1 CLR 607, Bank Karmachari Sangh v. K.R. Pawar, Member, Industrial Court, Pune 1996 1 CLR 99, Cooperative Bank Employees Union v. The State of Maharashtra 2004 1 CLR 582, Sahakari Bank Karmachari Union v. Assistant Registrar of Unions 2005 (4) Mah.L.J. 168, Shri J.S.K. Ltd. v. Rashtriya Sahakar Kamgar Sangh, 1992 (Cooperative Cases), Apex Marketing Corporation v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1987 11 CLR 137, Babaji Garad v. Nashik Merchants Cooperative Bank and Ors. : [1984]1SCR767 , Rajendra Jagtap and Ors. v. Baramati Taluka Sahakari Kamgar Sabha and Ors. 2007 1 CLR 455, Navjagneet Labour Union v. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. 2007 3 CLR 430 and Fashion Production Mazdoor Sabha v. Smita P. Dalvi and Ors. 1985 11 CLR 314. Mr. Dharap also submitted written submissions.

15. Written submissions have also been filed by the said bank. Drawing our attention to the written submissions, Mr. Godbole, learned Counsel for the said bank submitted that the relief of cancellation of the Election Notification dated 26/6/2007 and Notification dated 25/8/2007declaring results to the posts of Chairman, Vice Chairman, cannot be granted because the elected members of the Managing Committee of the said bank who are likely to be affected are not made parties. He submitted that the petitioner has no locus to claim such relief since even if the representatives of the petitioner were to be selected as members of the Managing Committee under Section 73BB, they have no right to vote in the elections of the Chairman and Vice Chairman.

16. Mr. Godbole further submitted that if it is held that the petitionerunion alone has exclusive right to select the two employees, that will defeat provisions of Section 73BB and the constitutional mandate contained in Article 43A. He submitted that the intention of the legislature behind enacting Section 73BB is to have representatives of the employees in the management of the society. The concept of an industry or an establishment which are relevant and germane only for the purposes of the Bombay Act or MRTU & PULP Act are not relevant here.

17. Mr. Godbole relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Ors. v. P.G. Koranne and Ors. : AIR1983Bom317 . He submitted that it is clearly laid down in this judgment that the expression 'recognized union' used in Section 73BB cannot be given the meaning as given in the MRTU & PULP Act. Mr. Godbole submitted that MRTU & PULP Act does not apply to Banking industry. The Bombay Act does not have the concept of 'recognized union'. It defines primary union, qualified union, registered union and representative union. If the petitioner's argument is accepted, the words 'recognized union' used in Section 73BB will have to be read as representative union which cannot be done.

18. Mr. Godbole further submitted that the statutory intention behind Section 73BB is to give expression to the wishes of the majority of employees and, therefore, Section 73BB provides for democratic process of secret ballot in case of any dispute. Mr. Godbole submitted that that dispute would also include the question whether a union is recognized or not. Mr. Godbole further submitted that if it is held that whether the petitioner is a recognized union or not is not a dispute contemplated by Section 73BB that would render Section 73BB meaningless. Mr. Godbole submitted that majority of the employees of the said bank have voluntarily submitted affidavits stating that they do not want the two nominees of the petitioner union to be their representatives and this fact may be taken into consideration. We have at the outset noted that we have refused to take such belated affidavits on record at this stage. We shall deal with this argument at the appropriate stage.

19. Mr. Godbole further submitted that Section 73BB uses the words union or unions. If the interpretation sought to be put on the section by the petitionerunion is accepted, the words 'or unions' would become otiose. Similarly, as at least fifty employees are required before a union can be registered as a recognised union under the MRTU & PULP Act, many cooperative banks where number of employees is more than 25 but less than 50 would not have a recognised union. This would result in a very absurd situation and, therefore, the argument of the petitionerunion cannot be accepted.

20. Mr. Godbole relied on All India Bank Officers Confederation and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : (1990)ILLJ352SC , where the circular of the Central Government expressing that the Government wishes to appoint any officer of proven ability and character to the Board of Directors of a nationalized bank irrespective of his affiliation with any association, was under challenge as being undemocratic and contrary to the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1971. Mr. Godbole pointed out that the Supreme Court struck down the circular observing that in case of employees, election is indeed the most logical, the most appropriate, the most democratic and certainly the most advantageous form of representation.

21. Mr. Godbole also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Babaji Garad's case (supra) where the Supreme Court was considering Section 73B of the MCS Act which provides for reservation of seats on Committees of certain societies for Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, etc. It was inter alia, urged that Section 73B provides representation to specified classes mentioned therein and that must be held to be mandatory and not the method by which the representation is ensured. It was urged that any one of the three modes can be adopted to comply with the mandatory part of Section 73B and cooption can ensure representation to the qualified persons to fill in reserved seats. The Supreme Court held that the struggle to get direct representation cannot be thwarted in this manner. The Supreme Court observed that the method of cooption denudes the power of the constituency to elect members and is usurped by a small body like the Board of Directors. The Supreme Court observed that co option could never be equated with election much less accorded precedence over election by the general body of the members that is the constituency. These judgments according to Mr. Godbole emphasise the importance of election.

22. Mr. Godbole also relied on Maheshwari Fish Seed Farm v. T.N. Electricity Board : AIR2004SC2341 in support of his submission that a statute cannot be interpreted in accordance with another statute more so when such statutes are not in pari materia. In that case, the Supreme Court was considering whether pisci culture is agriculture. Attention of the Supreme Court was drawn to the definition of the term 'agriculture' as given in the definition sections of several other enactments. In this context, the Supreme Court observed as under : .The definition of the term in one statute does not afford a guide to the construction of the same in another statute and the sense in which the term has been understood in the several statutes does not necessarily throw any light on the manner in which the term should be understood generally.

The Supreme Court further observed that

Secondly, it is common knowledge that the definition coined by the legislature for the purpose of a particular enactment is often an extended or artificial meaning so assigned as to fulfill the object of that enactment. Such definitions given in other enactments cannot be freely used for finding out meaning to be assigned to a term of common parlance used in an altogether different setting.

23. Mr. Godbole relied on the following observations of the Supreme Court in Apex Cooperative Bank of Urban Bank of Maharashtra & Goa Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Ors. : AIR2004SC141 .

The term 'Cooperative Bank' has been defined in the Banking Regulation Act and only includes a State Cooperative Bank or a Central Cooperative Bank or a primary Cooperative Bank. Reference to the term 'Cooperative Bank' in the MultiState Act is of no assistance. When a term is specifically defined in a statute then for purposes of that statute that term cannot bear a meaning assigned to it in another statute. One cannot ignore the specific definition given in the Banking Regulation Act and apply some other definition set out in some other statute.

24. Mr. Godbole also relied on a judgment of this Court in Co operative Bank Employees' Union, Sindhudurg and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2004 1 CLR 582. In that case, the petitionerunion nominated petitioners 2 and 3 as employee Directors on the Board of Directors of the respondentbank. The Bank refused to accept the nomination made by the petitioner union on the ground that petitioners 2 and 3 are working in the grade of Junior Officer and they are not employees within the meaning of the Bombay Act. this Court rejected this submission after observing that if the legislature intended to confine the application of the section only to the employees as defined by the Bombay Act, the legislature would have made a specific provision for incorporating the definition in the section. this Court further observed that there is nothing in the scheme of the section to suggest that only employees as defined by Section 3(13) of the Bombay Act are covered by the section and if this contention of the bank were to be accepted, the court would be entering the field of legislation which it was not entitled to do.

25. Relying on these judgments, Mr. Godbole contended that the words 'representative union' cannot be interpreted to mean 'recognized union' by reference to MRTU & PULP Act, when representative union is specifically defined in the Bombay Act. That would do violence to both the Acts and that would amount to entering the field of legislation which the court cannot do. He submitted that definition of the term used in one statute does not afford a guide to the construction of the same in another statute. Mr. Godbole submitted that in the circumstances and having regard to the legislative mandate of ensuring true participation of workers on the Managing Committee of the society, this Court should grant no relief to the petitionerunion.

26. Before embarking on interpretation of Section 73BB of the MCS Act, it is necessary to have a look at Article 43A of the Constitution of India. It reads thus : Participation of workers in management of industries The State shall take steps, by suitable legislation or in any other way, to secure the participation of workers in the management of undertakings, establishments and other organizations engaged in any industry.'

27. Chapter VII of the MCS Act provides for management of societies. Section 73 thereof states that management of every society shall vest in a committee, constituted in accordance with the MCS Act, the rules and the byelaws and the Committee shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed respectively by MCS Act, the rules and the byelaws.

28. Section 73BB provides for reservation of seats for employees on committees of certain societies. Thus what Section 73BB seeks to do is to ensure participation of employees in the management of the society to the extent and manner laid down therein. It reflects the philosophy of employees participation underlying Article 43A of the Constitution of India which we have quoted hereinabove.

29. Section 73BB was first added by Section 15 of the Maharashtra Act No. 3 of 1974 which came into force on 15/2/1974. It fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in Saraswat Co operative Bank's case (supra). In that case, three banks had challenged the constitutional validity of Section 73BB as it stood at that time. All the three banks were registered as Cooperative Societies under the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. The said Act was repealed by the MCS Act and the three banks were registered under the MCS Act.

30. Section 73BB as it stood then needs to be quoted as Saraswat Cooperative Bank's (supra) judgment revolves round it. It reads thus :

73BB. On the committee of such society or class of societies as the State Government may, by general or special order, direct where the number of permanent salaried employees of the society is 25 or more :

(a) if the number of members of the committee thereof is 11 or less - one seat; and

(b) if the number of such members is 12 or more - one additional seat for every 10 members over and above the first 11 members, shall be reserved for such employees. The seats so reserved shall be filled by selection made by the recognised union or unions, from amongst such employees. If there be no such union, the members representing such employees may be nominated by the State Government. Any person selected or nominated as a member of the committee to any reserved seat shall not be entitled to be elected as an officer of such society, or to vote at any election of officers.

31. Facts of that case need to be stated. Government of Maharashtra issued GR dated 13/9/1977 to give effect to Section 73BB. By this GR, the Government brought all Urban Cooperative Banks which have in their establishment at least 25 permanent employees, within the purview of Section 73BB. The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies was requested to suggest the names of the employees who would be required to be nominated in the light of the provisions of Section 73BB.

32. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies intimated to the Saraswat Cooperative Bank Limited (for short, 'the Saraswat Bank') about the said GR. By his letter dated 1/4/1980, the Deputy Registrar called upon the Saraswat Bank to implement the provisions of Section 73BB. The Saraswat Bank along with 20 other banks challenged the constitutional validity of Section 73BB. The Saraswat Bank's petition appears to have been treated as the lead petition and, therefore, we will only refer to the Saraswat Bank. One of the challenges was that the said section is void because it is unworkable and incapable of implementation. GR dated 13/9/1977 was also challenged.

33. For the purposes of the present matter, the challenge that Section 73BB is void because it is unworkable and incapable of implementation is material. It was argued that the seats reserved for employees were to be filled by selection by recognised union or unions, but the expression 'recognised union', however has not been defined in the MCS Act. While considering this challenge, this Court referred to MRTU & PULP Act and the Bombay Act. The question was what meaning could be assigned to the words 'recognised union' found in Section 73BB. this Court noted that the expression 'recognised union' has been defined in MRTU & PULP Act. It was enacted on 1/2/1972 and was brought into effect on 8/9/1975. Admittedly, it was not operative when Section 73BB was enacted and brought into force. Moreover, Section 3(13) of the MRTU & PULP Act defines 'recognised union' as a Union which has been granted a certificate of recognition under chapter III. this Court considered Section 10 of the MRTU & PULP Act which makes provisions for the application of chapter III. We may quote Section 10.

10. Application of Chapter III.

(1) Subject to the provisions of subsecs. (2) and (3), the provisions of this Chapter shall apply to every undertaking, wherein fifty or more employees are employed, or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months.

Provided that, State Government may, after giving not less than sixty days' notice of its intention so to do, by notification in the Official Gazette, apply the provisions of this Chapter to any undertaking, employing such number of employees less than fifty as may be specified in the notification.

(2) The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to undertakings in industries to which the provisions of the Bombay Act for the time being apply.

(3) If the number of employees employed in any undertaking to which the provisions of this Chapter apply at any time falls below fifty continuously for a period of one year, those provisions shall cease to apply to such undertaking.

34. this Court noted that upon analysis of this section, it is clear that provisions of chapter III do not apply to undertakings in industries to which the provisions of the Bombay Act for the time being apply and provisions of chapter III apply to an undertaking wherein fifty or more employees are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months. this Court noted that the expression 'recognised union' does not occur in the Bombay Act. The Bombay Act provides for registration of unions in different categories such as representative union for an industry in a local area and also for recognition of certain unions as approved unions. The Bombay Act applies to cooperative banks which do not have a branch or other establishment outside the State of Maharashtra. Many cooperative banks are outside its purview. this Court further observed that in view of the fact that as per Section 10(1) of the MRTU & PULP Act at least fifty employees are required before a union can be registered as a recognised union, many cooperative banks would not have a recognised union. Considering that the minimum number of permanent employees of a banking society for the application of Section 73BB is twenty five only Section 73BB must bear the ordinary and different meaning i.e. a union recognised by the employer. this Court further observed that this would be the most reasonable construction and, therefore, the seats of the employees have to be filled by selection made by the union recognised by the employers.

35. It is significant to note that after the Supreme Court observed that the term recognized union cannot be given meaning assigned to it under the MRTU & PULP Act and that the said expression is not defined in the Bombay Act, and therefore, it must bear the ordinary meaning i.e. a Union recognized by the employer, the legislature amended Section 73BB by Maharashtra Act XX of 1986 which came into force on 18/4/1986. The amended Section 73BB reads thus :

73BB. Reservation of seats for employees on committees of certain Societies - (1) On the committee of such Society or class of Societies as the State Government may, by general or special order, direct where the number of permanent salaried employees of the society is 25 or more

(a) if the number of members of the Committee thereof is 11 or less - one seat; and

(b) if the number of such members is 12 or more - one additional seat for every 10 member over and above the first 11 members, shall be reserved for such employees.

The seats so reserved shall be filled by selection made by the Union or Unions recognized under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (Bom.XI of 1947) or the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (Mah. I of 1972), from amongst such employees. Where there is no such union then the selection shall be made by the Union with the largest membership, and where there is no union at all then by an election by such employees from amongst themselves in the prescribed manner. Any person selected or elected as a member of the Committee to any reserved seat shall not be entitled to be elected as an Officer of such Society, or to vote at any election of Officers.

(2) No employee who is under suspension shall be eligible for being selected or elected or for being continued as a member under Sub section (1).

(3) Subject to the provisions of Subsection (2), the term of a member representing the employees shall be coterminus with the term of the committee as provided under the bye laws of the Society and after every fresh election of the members of the Committee a fresh selection or election, as the case may be, of a member under subsection (1) shall be necessary.

36. By the above amendment, therefore, the legislatures brought the concept of union found in the Bombay Act and in the MRTU & PULP Act in Section 73BB. The legislature obviously took note of the Supreme Court's judgment in Saraswat Bank's case (supra) which stated that the reasonable construction to be put on the term recognised union will be the union recognized by the employers. We are of the opinion that the fact that this amendment came soon after Saraswat Bank's judgment is significant and it clarifies the legislative intent that the term recognized union cannot be understood as the union recognized by the employers, but its meaning must be ascertained by reading the MRTU & PULP Act with the Bombay Act. We are also of the opinion that in view of the amendment effected in 73BB after Saraswat Bank's judgment (supra) and in view of the subsequent judgments to which we shall soon advert, the said judgment no longer holds the field and reliance placed on the said judgment by the said bank is misplaced.

37. The reason why the Bombay Act and MRTU & PULP Act were inserted in Section 73BB are not far to seek. Section 73BB as we have already stated is in tune with Article 43A of the Constitution which incorporates the philosophy of workers participation in the management. The workers' representatives who will be on the Committee as contemplated by Section 73BB have to obviously guard the interest of the workers/employees to the extent Section 77BB permits them to do so. The Bombay Act and the MRTU & PULP Act are enacted to protect workers/employers' interest. Unions are the protectors of workers and that is why in Section 73BB as amended, the term recognized union is found to have been linked to the Bombay Act and the MRTU & PULP Act. This conclusion reached by us would be found acceptable if we advert to the object and salient features of the two Acts, their corelation and the judgment of the Supreme Court and this Court which have dealt with it. Before that, to complete the narration of facts, we must state that Section 73BB was further amended by Maharashtra Act No.VII of 1997 which came into force on 2/1/1997. The amended section reads thus :

73BB. Reservation of seats for employees on committees of certain Societies - (1) On the committee of such Society or class of Societies as the State Government may, by general or special order, direct where the number of permanent salaried employees of the society is 25 or more

(a) if the number of members of the Committee thereof is 11 or less - one seat; and

(b) if the number of such members is 12 or more - one additional seat for every 10 member over and above the first 11 members, shall be reserved for such employees.

The seats so reserved shall be filled by selection made by the Union or Unions recognized under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (Bom. IX of 1947) or the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (Mah. I of 1972), from amongst such employees. Where there is no such Recognized Union or Unions and where there is no union at all or where there is a dispute in relation to such issues including whether a union is recognized or not, then the seats so reserved shall be filled by an election by such employees from amongst themselves in the prescribed manner. Any person selected or elected as a member of the Committee to any reserved seat shall not be entitled to be elected as an Officer of such Society, or to vote at any election of Officers.

Explanation: For the purposes of this Section the members of the committee shall mean and include elected, appointed, nominated, coopted as well as exofficio members of the committee but it shall not include the representatives of the employees.

(2) No employee who is under suspension shall be eligible for being selected or elected or for being continued as a member under sub section (1).

(3) Subject to the provisions of Subsection (2), the term of a member representing the employees shall be coterminus with the term of the committee as provided under the bye laws of the Society and after every fresh election of the members of the Committee a fresh selection or election, as the case may be, of a member under subsection (1) shall be necessary.

38. We shall now advert to the object of the Bombay Act and the MRTU & PULP Act and their salient features to the extent to which they are relevant for the present purposes. The preamble to the Bombay Act states that it was enacted because it was expedient to provide for the regulation of the relations of employers and employees in certain matters, to consolidate and amend the law relating to the settlement of industrial disputes and to provide for certain other purposes. Section 3(13) defines employee to mean any person employed to do any skilled or unskilled work for hire or reward in any industry and includes the categories of persons mentioned therein. Section 3(14) defines employer. It states that ' employer' inter alia includes an association or a group of employers. Section 3(19) defines 'industry' to mean (a) any business, trade, manufacture or undertaking or calling of employers; (b) any calling, service, employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of employees and includes categories stated therein. Under Section 3(23) local area means any area (including the entire State) notified as a local area for the purposes of the Bombay Act or for different industries. Section 3(28) and Section 3(29) define primary union and qualified union respectively. Section 3(30) defines 'registered union' to mean a union registered under the Bombay Act. Section 3(33) defines representative union to mean a union registered as a representative union. Chapter III deals with registration of unions. Under Section 11 the Registrar can recognize any concern in an industry to be an undertaking or any section of an undertaking to be an occupation. As per Section 13(i) any union which has for the whole of the period of [three calendar months immediately preceding the calendar month in which it so applies] for registration a membership of [not less than twentyfive per cent] of the total number of employees employed in any industry in any local area may apply to the Registrar for registration as a Representative Union for such industry in such local area. Section 14 empowers the Registrar to register a union which has made an application under Section 13 and issue a certificate in that behalf. The first proviso to this section states that in any local area, there shall not be at any time, more than one registered union in respect of the same industry. Section 15 empowers the Registrar to cancel the registration of a union on the grounds stated therein.

39. The MRTU & PULP Act was enacted 'to provide for the recognition of trade unions for facilitating collective bargaining for certain undertakings, to state their rights and obligations, to confer certain power on unrecognized unions, to provide for declaring certain strikes and lockouts as illegal, to define and provide for the prevention of certain unfair labour practices and to provide for matters connected with the aforesaid purposes.

40. Section 3(1) thereof states that the Bombay Act means the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. Section 3(5) states that an employee in relation to an industry to which the Bombay Act applies means an employee defined in Clause 3(13) of the Bombay Act. Under Section 3(6), 'employer' in relation to an industry to which the Bombay Act applied means an employer defined in Section 3(14) of the Bombay Act. Section (7) states that industry in relation to an industry to which the Bombay Act applied means an industry as defined in Clause 19 of Section 3 of the Bombay Act. Section 3(15) states that undertaking for the purposes of Chapter III (Chapter III provides for recognition of unions) means any concern in industry to be one undertaking for the purpose of that chapter. Section 3(13) defines recognized union to be a union which has been issued a certificate of recognition under Chapter III.

41. Section 10(1) of Chapter III states that the provisions of Chapter III shall apply to every undertaking wherein fifty or more employees are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months. Section 10(2) states that provisions of Chapter III shall not apply to any undertakings in industry to which the provisions of the Bombay Act for the time being apply. Section 11 provides for application for recognition of a union. It states that any union which has for the whole of the period of six calendar months immediately preceding the calendar month in which it so applies a membership of not less than thirty per cent of the total number of employees employed in any undertaking may apply for being registered as a registered union for such undertaking. Under Section 12(3), the Industrial Court can grant recognition to a union and issue a certificate to that effect. Section 13 provides for cancellation of recognition of a union. Section 21 states that no employee in an undertaking to which the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act apply shall be allowed to appear and act or be represented in any proceeding relating to unfair labour practices specified in items 2 and 6 of the Schedule IV except through the recognized union.

42. Having taken a birds eyeview of the provisions of these two Acts to understand the correlation between the two Acts, we may turn to Shranik Utkarsha Sabha's case (supra). In that case, the Supreme Court was considering whether a representative union under the Bombay Act has the exclusive right to represent the employees of the concerned industry in complaints relating to unfair labour practices under the MRTU and PULP Act. It was inter alia argued that the Bombay Act and the MRTU and PULP Act operate in different fields. The Bombay Act did not deal with unfair labour practice. MRTU and PULP Act deals with unfair labour practice and its object was to prevent unfair labour practice. It was argued that therefore it allowed access to courts to any recognized or unrecognized union to ensure that unfair labour practice was prevented and even an unrecognized union could file a complaint and it had also a right to be heard in a complaint.

43. After noticing all the salient features of both the Acts which we have noted hereinabove the Supreme Court negatived the submission that both these Act operate in different fields. We may quote the relevant paragraph of the said judgment.

13. The MRTU and PULP Act takes note of the provisions of the BIR Act. Many of its definitions are stated to be those contained in the BIR Act. Chapter III, which deals with the recognition of unions, states, in Section 10(2) that its provision do not apply to undertakings in industries to which the provisions of the BIR Act apply. The BIR Act was enacted to provide for the regulation of the relation of employers and employees in certain matters and to consolidate and amend the law in relation to the settlement of industrial disputes. The MRTU and PULP Act was enacted to provide for the recognition of trade unions for facilitating collective bargaining for certain undertakings; to state their rights and obligations; to confer certain powers on un recognized unions; and to define and provide for the prevention of unfair labour practices; and to constitute courts in this behalf. It cannot, therefore, be said that the BIR Act and MRTU and PULP Act operate in different fields. There is communality in their objects and their provisions the obvious intent of the legislature which enacted them was that they should operate in tendene and complement each other in respect of industries to which the BIR Act had been made applicable. The two statutes must be read together.

44. After considering Section 21 of the MRTU and PULP Act, the Supreme Court observed that this provision does not lead to the conclusion that an union other than a representative union can appear in proceedings relating to all unfair labour practices other than those specified in items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV. Further observations of the Supreme Court need to be quoted.

The objective of the provisions of the BIR Act and the MRTU and PULP Act read together, and the embargo placed upon representation by any one other than the representative of the employees, who, for the most part, is the representative union, except in matters pertaining to an individual dispute between an employee and the employer, is to facilitate collective bargaining. The rationale is that it is the interest of industrial peace and in public and national interest that the employer should have to deal, in matters which concern all or most of its employees, only with a union which is representative of them. It may be that a union which was representative of the employees may have in the course of time lost that representative character, it is then open, under the provisions of the BIR Act for a rival union to seek to replace it.

45. It is also necessary to refer to Bank Karmachari Sangh's case (supra). In that case, the 3rd respondent, an undertaking in the Banking industry in a cooperative sector entered into settlement with the individual workman. The employees of the 3rd respondent addressed a demand letter to the Chairman of the 3rd respondent demanding revision of their wages. The petitioner which was the representative and approved union for the banking industry in the local area of Pune District and Cantonment, gave a notice of change under Section 42(2). The 3rd respondent employer ignored the said notice of change presumably under the erroneous impression that nothing need to be done since none of its employees were members of the petitionerunion. This culminated into the petitionerunion making a Reference of the industrial dispute to the Wage Board under Section 88CC of the Bombay Act. Before the Wage Board, the 3rd respondent employer raised a preliminary objection as to the tenability of the Reference. The Wage Board held that the Reference was tenable. It further held that irrespective of whether the employees of the 3rd respondent were members of the petitionerunion, the petitionerunion as a representative union was entitled to represent the employees of the 3rd respondent employer before the Wage Board. The 3rd respondent challenged this order before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court quashed and set aside the Wage Board's order. That order was assailed in a writ petition in this Court. this Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Santuram v. Kimatrai Printers AIR 1978 SC 262, where the Supreme Court has observed that the combined effect of the provisions of the Bombay Act leaves no room for doubt that consistent with its avowed policy of preventing the exploitation of the workers and augmenting their bargaining power, the legislature has clothed the representative union with plenary power to appear or act on behalf of the employees in any proceedings under the Bombay Act and has deprived the individual employees or workmen of the right to appear or act in any proceedings under the Bombay Act, where the representative union enters appearance or acts as a representative of employees.

46. this Court also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Girija Shankar's case (supra) and observed that under the scheme of the Bombay Act the representation on behalf of the employees is industrywise. So long as the union is qualified to act as a representative union by fulfilling the qualifications contained in Sections 13 and 14 of the Bombay Act, it is entitled to be registered as a representative union. this Court observed that the membership criterion for a representative union under Section 13 is membership of not less than 25% of the total number of employees employed in any industry and not in any industrial undertaking in the industry and as long as this criterion is fulfilled, the representative union is entitled to act on behalf of all employees in the industry as the representative union, irrespective of individual memberships of employees in industrial undertakings. this Court observed that the reason for this is that the preamble of the Bombay Act indicates that it is an 'Act to regulate the relations of employers and employees, to make provision for settlement of individual disputes...'. Thus underlying philosophy of the Bombay Act appears to be to discourage mushrooming of unions and to encourage stable and healthy collective bargaining between the employer and the recognized collective bargaining agent for the entire industry. In the circumstances, this Court set aside the order of the Industrial Court.

47. Preamble of both the Acts, their provisions and the above judgments indicate that though both the Acts may apply to different set of employees, their object being similar, they operate in the same field. MRTU and PULP Act does not intrude on the Bombay Act so far as the present issues are concerned. MRTU and PULP Act does not step in where the field is occupied by the Bombay Act. MRTU and PULP Act takes note of the provisions of the Bombay Act. Many of its definitions are stated to be those contained in the Bombay Act. Considering the communality of their objects and provisions, they must be read together.

48. Once this conclusion is arrived at clarity is achieved. For interpreting the words 'union or unions recognized under the Bombay Act or the MRTU and PULP Act' found in Section 73BB, both the Acts will have to be read together. Their purpose will have to be taken into account. If this exercise is carried out, it becomes clear that the term 'union recognized under Bombay Act' must be understood as union registered as representative union under the Bombay Act because purpose of having representatives of the society on the committee is, as we have already stated, to participate in the management of the society to protect the interest of the employees and only the representative union is competent to do so in law. It is a collective bargaining agent. As a collective bargaining agent, it is powerful and better suited to look after the employees' interest rather than smaller unions. For further light on this question, we will have to revert to the same judgments which we have referred to hereinabove.

49. In Shramik Uttarsh Sabha's case (supra), this Court had taken a view that a representative union under the Bombay Act has the exclusive right to represent the employees of the concerned industry in complaints relating to unfair labour practices under the MRTU and PULP Act. The Supreme Court upheld the view and held that the objective of both the Acts read together and the embargo placed upon representation by any one other than the representative of the employees who, for the most part is the representative union, except in matters pertaining to an individual dispute between an employee and the employer, is to facilitate collective bargaining. The Supreme Court further observed that the rationale is that it is in the interest of industrial peace and in public and national interest that the employer should have to deal in matters which concern all or most of its employees only with a union which is representative of them. Thus, the Supreme Court stated the importance of a representative union and stressed its bargaining potential on behalf of the employees.

50. In Bank Karmachari Sangh's case (supra), this Court was again considering the same question. this Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Santuram's case (supra), Girija Shankar's case (supra) and Shranik Uttkarsh's case (supra) and observed that the representative union is entitled to act on behalf of all employees in the industry as the representative union, irrespective of individual memberships of employees in individual undertakings. this Court further observed that the underlying philosophy of the Bombay Act appears to be to discourage mushrooming of unions and to encourage stable and healthy collective bargaining between the employer and the recognized collective bargaining agent for the entire industry this Court further noted that it is this refrain which recurs throughout the scheme of the Bombay Act reflecting itself in several provisions of the Bombay Act, which were noticed by the Supreme Court in the above referred decisions. Thus, this Court described the representative union as a collective bargaining agent and indicated that stable and healthy collective bargaining has to be encouraged and mushrooming of unions has to be discouraged.

51. Once it is accepted that representative union under the Bombay Act is the sole bargaining agent for the entire industry and that mushrooming of unions is to be avoided for industrial harmony and peace and in the national interest and that the Bombay Act and the MRTU and PULP Act have to be read together as they complement each other, then the words 'union recognized under the Bombay Act' found in Section 73BB will have to be understood as union registered as representative union under the Bombay Act. This is the only reasonable interpretation which can be put on the said term. Such interpretation would subserve the purpose of Section 73BB of the MCS Act.

52. It was argued by Mr. Godbole that such interpretation is not permissible because definition of a term in one statute cannot be freely used for finding out meaning to be assigned to a term used in other statute. He submitted that when a term is specifically defined in a statute then for purposes of that statute that term cannot bear a meaning assigned to it in another statute. Mr. Godbole submitted that such course would result in this Court entering the field of legislation which it cannot do. We have already referred to the judgments on which Mr. Godbole has placed reliance in support of the above submission and quoted the relevant paragraphs thereof.

53. We are of the considered opinion that reliance placed by Mr. Godbole on the said judgments is misplaced because the legal position in respect of both the Acts has been settled by the Supreme Court in the judgments to which we have already adverted. At the cost of repetition, we must state that in Shranik Utkarsh's case (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that the MRTU and PULP Act takes note of the provisions of the Bombay Act and many of its definitions are stated to be those contained in the Bombay Act. The Supreme Court has observed that these Acts do not operate in different fields and there is communality in their objects and provisions. The Supreme Court has further clarified that the intention of the legislature is that they should operate in tandem and complement each other in respect of the industries to which the Bombay Act had been made applicable. The Supreme Court has held that the two statutes must be read together.

54. In our opinion the above observation of the Supreme Court offers a fitting reply to Mr. Godbole's argument. While construing meaning of the term 'recognized union under the Bombay Act', the provisions of both the Acts will have to be necessarily read together so as to ensure that the interpretation does not bring about a conflict and attains the object of Section 73BB. The judgments cited by Mr. Godbole, in our opinion, will have to be confined to their own facts. We are also unable to accept Mr. Godbole's submission that if the above interpretation is accepted, the words 'or unions' found in Section 73BB would become otiose. In this connection, we find substance in Mr. Dharap's contention that the legislature has used the words 'union or unions' to take care of a situation where part of the industrial activity is covered by the Bombay Act and part of it is governed by MRTU and PUP Act. In such case, the local area to which the Bombay Act would apply, would have a representative union and the part where the Bombay Act does not apply may have a recognized union under the MRTU & PULP Act. There is no question of the words 'or unions' being rendered otiose. We reject this submission of Mr. Godbole.

55. In the light of our above conclusion, the petitionerunion which is registered as a representative union under the Bombay Act must be treated as a recognized union for the purposes of Section 73BB of the MCS Act.

56. Mr. Godbole contended that in any event, Section 73BB provides that where there is no such recognized union or unions and where there is no union at all or where there is a dispute in relation to such issues including whether a union is recognized or not, then the seats so reserved shall be filled by an election by such employees from amongst themselves in the prescribed manner. He submitted that inasmuch as there is a dispute pending as to whether the petitioner union is recognized or not, the reserved seats will have to be filled by an election by employees from amongst themselves. We have already referred to the judgments cited by Mr. Godbole where election is described as the most democratic form of representation in case of employees. None can undermine the importance of choosing workers representatives by election when situation warranting election contemplated under Section 73BB arises. The question is whether in this case circumstances exist which must bring in operation the part of Section 73BB pertaining to elections. Section 20 of the Bombay Act which falls in Chapter III which provides for registration of unions states that any party to a proceeding before the Registrar may appeal against the order passed by the Registrar under this Chapter to the Industrial Court. Therefore, only a party to the proceeding before the Registrar has a right to appeal against the order granting representative character to the petitionerunion. The appeal is filed by the said bank under Sections 20 and 24A of the Bombay Act. Even appeal under Section 24A can be filed by a party to the proceeding before the Registrar. Since the said bank is not a party to the proceeding before the Registrar in our prima facie opinion, the appeal is not tenable. We, however, refrain from expressing final opinion because the appeal is subjudice.

57. In any case, the said bank should have made an application for expediting the said appeal and should have got it disposed of. By keeping it pending in this manner, the said bank cannot urge that the dispute is pending. We are distressed to note that earlier petition being Writ Petition No. 3466 of 2006 filed by the petitioner involving same issue was admitted by this Court on 12/8/2008. The said bank was party to the said petition. Same statement about pendency of appeal filed by the said bank was made by learned Counsel for the said bank. this Court granted interim relief after observing that mere pendency of the appeal cannot be a ground for denying the recognised/representative union the right to nominate the representatives on the Board of Directors. It is unfortunate that six years thereafter the same submission is made. In our opinion, for the aforesaid reasons, it cannot be said that any dispute as regards recognition of representative character of the petitioner union is pending and, therefore, the question of filling the seats reserved for employees by election does not arise.

58. Before we close, we must advert to the fact that by the interim order dated 12/8/2002 referred to hereinabove, the respondents therein were directed to notify the names of two persons who had been nominated and selected by the petitioner union to be on the Board of Directors as Workers' Directors. The said order was complied with. It is now contended by the respondents that the said order pertained to dispute as regards elections held in year 2002 for the period 2002 to 2007 and, hence, it cannot be held to be binding for all further elections. Though technically, the said bank is right in so contending, the fact remains that this Court even at interim stage thought it fit to give a direction to the respondents to notify the names of two persons who had been nominated by the petitionerunion to be on the Board of Directors as Workers Directors. Having applied our mind to the points in issue, we are of the opinion that the interim order dated 12/8/2002 was completely in accordance with law and achieved the purpose of Section 73BB of the MCS Act.

59. In the view that we have taken even if the alleged voluntary affidavits sought to be tendered on record belatedly by the said bank are taken into account that will not make difference to the result of this case because as stated by this Court in Bank Karmachari Sangh's case (supra), the membership criterion for representative union under Section 13 is membership of not less than 25% of the total number of employees employed in any industry and not in any industrial undertaking in the industry and as long as this criterion is fulfilled the representative union is entitled to act on behalf of all employees in the industry as the representative union irrespective of individual memberships of employees in individual undertakings and mushrooming of unions is to be discouraged to ensure healthy collective bargaining. In any case, it is not any employees union, which has come to the court. Surprisingly, it is the employer who is prosecuting this litigation. Any attempt to create disharmony amongst employees of the industry cannot be encouraged. The concept of collective bargaining cannot be undermined.

60. The question is what order is to be passed now. It appears from the affidavit of Mr. Mane, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Solapur, that election programme was conducted from 27/6/2007 to 6/8/2007. The election results were declared by Election Officer on 6/8/2007 and the election results were conveyed to Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 6/8/2007. The names of all the elected members have been notified by order dated 13/8/2007. Admittedly elected members are not party to the present writ petition, hence, Notification dated 26/6/2007 cannot be set aside in their absence. However, we must note the flaw in the impugned Notification.

61. The impugned Notification notifies the reservation for categories such as nomadic tribes, economically weaker sections, other backward class, etc. But it does not notify the reservation for workers representatives contained in Section 73BB. In this connection, reliance placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balaji Garad's case (supra) is apt. In that case, the Supreme Court was dealing with Section 73BB of the MCS Act which pertains to reservation of seats for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, etc. There was no whisper in the election programme whether any of the seats were reserved. The Supreme Court found this omission to be glaring. The Supreme Court observed that the election programme must in order to comply with the legal formality show whether any of the seats to be filled in are reserved and specify the class in whose favour the reservation is made.

62. Though not directly applicable, the principle laid down in this judgment is also attracted to reservation under Section 73BB. The impugned notification does not accord with the above judgment. However, since elected persons are not made party to the petition, we are not inclined to pursue this further. In our opinion, in the circumstances and in the view that we have taken, a direction needs to be given to the respondents to appoint the two persons who are selected by the petitionerunion on the Board of Directors as workers representatives. Order accordingly. The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms.

At this stage Mr. Godbole, learned Counsel appearing for respondent 3 states that this order may be stayed because respondent 3 is desirous of approaching the Supreme Court. Mr. Dharap, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strongly opposes this prayer. Considering the fact that at preset, there is no employeerepresentative on the Board, we feel that our order should take effect. Needless to say that the appointments would be subject to the decision of the Supreme Court and the appointees must be made known about this order which has made their appointments subject to the Supreme Court's order.