II (2019 )BC1 (SC ), 2019 (3 ) CHN (SC ) 169 , [2019 ]150 CLA279 (SC ), 2019 (3 )CTC715 , 2019 (II )CLR(SC)1 , 2019 INSC 595 , 2019 (2 )RCR(Civil)997 , 2019 (7 )SCALE136 , (2019 )11 SCC332 , 2019 (6 ) SCJ 411 , [2019 ]154 SCL1 (SC ), [2019 ]7 SCR1048 , ,MANU/SC/0626/2019Rohinton Fali Nariman#Vineet Saran#29SC3020Judgment/OrderAIR#AWC#BC#CHN#CLA#CTC#CurLR#INSC#MANU#RCR (Civil)#SCALE#SCC#SCJ#SCL#SCRRohinton Fali Nariman,Textile#TextileSUPREME COURT OF INDIA2019-5-2692389,692385,692390,692381,24107,24114,24120,24123,19085,19091,692396,44220 -->

MANU/SC/0626/2019

True Court CopyTM English

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 20978 of 2017

Decided On: 30.04.2019

Appellants: JK Jute Mill Mazdoor Morcha Vs. Respondent: Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Rohinton Fali Nariman and Vineet Saran

JUDGMENT

Rohinton Fali Nariman, J.

1. The present appeal raises an important question as to whether a trade union could be said to be an operational creditor for the purpose of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ["Code"]. The facts of the present case reveal a long-drawn saga of a jute mill being closed and reopened several times until finally, it has been closed for good on 07.03.2014. Proceedings were pending under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. On 14.03.2017, the Appellant issued a demand notice on behalf of roughly 3000 workers Under Section 8 of the Code for outstanding dues of workers. This was replied to by Respondent No. 1 on 31.03.2017. The National Company Law Tribunal ["NCLT"], on 28.04.2017, after describing all the antecedent facts including suits that have been filed by Respondent No. 1 and referring to pending writ petitions in the High Court of Delhi, ultimately held that a trade union not being covered as an operational creditor, the petition would have to be dismissed. By the impugned order dated 12.09.2017, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ["NCLAT"] did likewise and dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant before us, stating that each worker may file an individual application before the NCLT.

2. Shri Gopal Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant took us through various provisions of the Code and the Trade Unions Act, 1926, ["Trade Unions Act"] and cited a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Sanjay Sadanand Varrier v. Power Horse India Pvt. Ltd.,   MANU/MH/0469/2017 : (2017) 5 Mah LJ 876 ["Sanjay Sadanand Varrier"] to argue that even literally speaking, the provisions of the Code would lead to the result that a trade union would be an operational creditor within the meaning of the Code. Even otherwise, a purposive interpretation ought to be granted, as has been done in various recent judgments to the provisions of the Code, and that therefore, such an application by a registered trade union filed as an operational creditor would be maintainable. Shr........