JK Jute Mill Mazdoor Morcha vs Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Ltd

JK Jute Mill Mazdoor Morcha vs Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Ltd - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2019 - 


On 30th April, 2019, in the case of JK Jute Mill Mazdoor Morcha v. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Ltd. through its Director & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.20978 of 2017], the question for consideration was whether a trade union could be said to be an operational creditor for the purpose of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It was held that “a registered trade union which is formed for the purpose of regulating the relations between workmen and their employer can maintain a petition as an operational creditor on behalf of its members.”


The Supreme Court held that a trade union is “an entity established under a statute – namely, the Trade Unions Act”, and would therefore fall within the definition of “person” under Sections 3(23) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It was held that this being so, it is clear that an “operational debt”, meaning a claim in respect of employment, could certainly be made by a person duly authorised to make such claim on behalf of a workman. It was further held that “Rule 6, Form 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 also recognises the fact that claims may be made not only in an individual capacity, but also conjointly. Further, a registered trade union recognised by Section 8 of the Trade Unions Act, makes it clear that it can sue and be sued as a body corporate under Section 13 of that Act. Equally, the general fund of the trade union, which inter alia is from collections from workmen who are its members, can certainly be spent on the conduct of disputes involving a member or members thereof or for the prosecution of a legal proceeding to which the trade union is a party, and which is undertaken for the purpose of protecting the rights arising out of the relation of its members with their employer, which would include wages and other sums due from the employer to workmen.”


It was held that even otherwise, “instead of one consolidated petition by a trade union representing a number of workmen, filing individual petitions would be burdensome as each workman would thereafter have to pay insolvency resolution process costs, costs of the interim resolution professional, costs of appointing valuers, etc. under the provisions of the Code read with Regulations 31 and 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.”


The Supreme Court observed that clearly “the trade union represents its members who are workers, to whom dues may be owed by the employer, which are certainly debts owed for services rendered by each individual workman, who are collectively represented by the trade union. Equally, to state that for each workman there will be a separate cause of action, a separate claim, and a separate date of default would ignore the fact that a joint petition could be filed under Rule 6 read with Form 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, with authority from several workmen to one of them to file such petition on behalf of all.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

संविधान के अनुच्छेद 12 के अनुसार राज्य | State in Article 12 of Constitution