JUDGMENT 1. The dispute in the present Petition, is as regards the nominations of two persons on the Board of Directors of the Respondent no.5 Co-operative Society in terms of Section 73BB of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). 2. The factual matrix involved in the present Petition is stated thus:- The Respondent no.5, Sangamner Bhag Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Amrutnagar, Sangamner is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the said Act. In terms of Section 73BB of the said Act, two nominees of the workers, are to be co-opted on the Board of Directors of the Respondent no.5 Sugar factory. This is on the basis of the strength of the Board of Directors. The elections to the Board of Directors of the Respondent no.5 Sugar factory took place sometime in the year 2005. After the said elections, the Managing Director of the Respondent no.5, Sugar factory addressed a letter dated 26.2.2005 to the Petitioner Union which at the relevant time was the recognised Union for sending it’s representatives for being nominated on the Board of Directors of the Respondent no.5 Sugar factory in terms of Section 73BB of the said Act. It appears that initially the Petitioner sent three names as the representatives of the workers on the Board of Directors, of the Respondent no.5 Sugar factory. The Managing Director on receipt of the three names informed the Petitioner that looking to the numerical strength of the Board of Directors only two names could be sent. It appears that thereafter the Petitioner sent two names, as the representatives of the workers namely Shri K.N. Chattar and Shri L.B. Warpe. The said names were sent pursuant to a resolution passed by the Managing Committee, of the Petitioner Union. 3. After the said names of Shri K.N. Chattar and Shri L.B. Warpe as representatives of the workers were sent, pandemonium broke loose, as two members of the Managing Council of the Petitioner Union namely Shri Dinkar Pandharinath Gagre and Chandrabhan Thakaji Mhase addressed a letter dated 10.4.2005 to the Managing Director, that the said two names have been sent without holding a meeting of the Union or without taking the workers in confidence and were sent in collusion with the said two persons. Thereafter 29 workers vide their letter dated 3.5.2005, also addressed to the Managing Director of the Respondent no.5 took objection to the names of the said two persons. It appears that about 950 workers of the Respondent no.5 Sugar factory out of the total 1082 workers also represented to the Managing Director against the said two names. On account of the said objections, there was a impasse as regards sending of the representatives of the workers on the Board of Directors in terms of Section 73BB. In view of the objections raised, the Respondent no.5 Sugar factory apprehending the breach of industrial peace did not take any action as regards the two representative of the workers on the Board of Directors of the Sugar factory. This resulted in the Petitioner Union filing Writ Petition no. 4390 of 2006 inter-alia seeking a direction that the authorities concerned should be directed to follow the mandate of Section 73BB of the said Act by accepting the two names sent by the Petitioner Union. In the said Petition, two workers namely, Raosaheb Gabaji Dighe and Mangesh Babu Jadhav sought to intervene therein. Considering the contentious issue as regards the nomination of the two representatives of the workers on the Board of Directors, a Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 17.11.2006 disposed of the said Writ Petition by directing the Regional Joint Director, Sugar, Ahmednagar to take a decision as regards the compliance of Section 73BB qua the Respondent no.5 Sugar factory within a period of eight weeks, after hearing the respective parties, the intervenors were also, granted liberty to approach the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) so that they could be heard in the matter. 4. After the disposal of the said Writ Petition no. 4390 of 2006, the Regional Joint Director, Sugar, Ahmednagar heard the respective parties including the intervenors and considering the mandate of Section 73BB of the said Act, by his order dated 11.1.2007 directed a meeting to be held of the workers, wherein, the said two representatives, could be elected by the workers. The Regional Joint Director, (Sugar) felt that this course of action needed to be followed in view of the dispute raised as regards the two employees sent by the Petitioner Union which was the recognised Union. The Regional Joint Director, (Sugar) felt that this course of action needed to be followed in view of the dispute raised as regards the two employees sent by the Petitioner Union which was the recognised Union. The Regional Joint Director also held that the said two employees, i.e. K.N. Chattar and B.S. Warpe were disqualified at the relevant time as they were defaulters in respect of two Societies from whom they had taken loan and had not repaid the same. The Regional Joint Director (Sugar) directed the holding of the meeting to elect the said two persons on account of the objections raised by the two Managing Council members of the Petitioner Union as well as the objection raised by as many as 950 workers of the Respondent no.5 Sugar factory and the apprehension expressed by the Respondent no.5 Sugar factory as regards the breach of industrial peace if the names of the two workers sent by the Petitioner Union were to be accepted. It is this order of the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) dated 11.1.2007, which is impugned in the present Petition. 5. It would be relevant at this stage to consider the reliefs sought in the present Petition. The prayers sought are reproduced hereinunder:- .(A) Call for Record and Proceedings from the office of the Respondents .(B) To quash and set aside the findings recorded by the Respondent no.3 in the order dated 11.1.2007 and direct the Respondent nos. 1 to 4 to take action under section 79 and 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for non-implementation of the provisions of section 73BB of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 against the Respondent no.5 Sugar Factory by issuing appropriate writ. .It be directed that, the representatives namely:(1) Kisan Nivruti Chattar and (2) Laxman Baburao Warpe recommended by the Petitioner recognised Union are representative of the employees on the Board of Directors of the Respondent No.5 Sugar Factory are valid representatives under section 73BB of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. .(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of thisWrit Petition stay the execution of the order and direction of the Respondent no.3 in his order dated 11.1.2007 (Exh. C). .(D) Any other suitable relief, which deems fitin the interest of justice may please be passed in favour of the Petitioner. 6. .(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of thisWrit Petition stay the execution of the order and direction of the Respondent no.3 in his order dated 11.1.2007 (Exh. C). .(D) Any other suitable relief, which deems fitin the interest of justice may please be passed in favour of the Petitioner. 6. The present Petition, was moved for admission on 2.7.2007, when after hearing the counsel for the respective parties, and considering the provisions of Section 73BB and 73FF of the said Act, this Court, granted interim reliefs to the extent of staying the order of the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) dated 11.1.2007 with a further direction to the Respondent no.5 Sugar factory to accept the nomination of the Petitioner, in favour of the two employees, Kisan Nivrutti Chattar and Laxman Baburao Warpe till decision of the above Petition/or till the completion of the term of the existing Board of Directors whichever is earlier. 7. Aggrieved by the said interim order dated 2.7.2007, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the Respondent no.6, filed Letters Patent Appeal, being no. 94 of 2007, the said Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court by staying the direction which was bracketed in red ink (quote) "till the completion of the term of the existing Board of Directors whichever is earliest" and thereby restricted their continuance pending the Petition. 8. The Respondent no.6, aggrieved by the order dated 2.7.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in the above Writ Petition, as also the order passed by the Division Bench dated 25.7.2007, in the Letters Patent Appeal no. 94 of 2007, filed Special Leave Petitions in the Apex Court being nos. 15265 of 2007 and 15266 of 2007. Whilst the said S.L.Ps. were pending, the Registrar appointed under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, Nasik Division, Nasik pursuant to the application made by the Respondent no.6, Union questioning the status of the Petitioner Union as a recognised Union, carried the physical verification of the membership of the Petitioner Union and the Respondent Union. In the said physical verification, it was revealed that the Respondent no.6 enjoyed the support of 698 members whereas the Petitioner Union had the support of only 248 members. In the said physical verification, it was revealed that the Respondent no.6 enjoyed the support of 698 members whereas the Petitioner Union had the support of only 248 members. After the said physical verification the registration of the Petitioner Union as the recognised Union, was cancelled by order dated 29.9.2007 and the Respondent no.6 Union was granted certificate as a registered recognised Union in place of the Petitioner Union on the same date i.e. 29.9.2007. Pursuant to the said order dated 29.9.2007 and the certificate granted to the Respondent no.6 Union as a recognised Union, for the said area the same was published in the official gazette on 11.10.2007. The Respondent no.6 thereafter in the pending SLPs., in view of the certificate granted to it as recognised Union by the Registrar, moved Interim Applications no. 5 of 2007 and 6 of 2007 thereby placing on record the order dated 29.9.2007, cancelling the status of a recognised Union of the Petitioner Union and the grant of certificate, as recognised Union to it. It appears that after the publication of notification as regards the Respondent no.6 as the recognised registered Union in the Official gazette a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Respondent no.6 was held and two representatives namely Raosaheb Gabaji Dighe and Mangesh Bapu Jadhav i.e. Respondent nos. 7 and 8 to the above Petition were selected as representatives of the employees on the Managing Committee of the Respondent no.5 Sugar factory in terms of Section 73BB of the said Act. The said resolution was passed on 14.10.2007 and a copy of the same was forwarded to the Respondent no.5 Sugar factory. 9. The SLPs. filed by the Respondent no.6 above named, came up for admission, before the Apex Court on 2.11.2007, and the Apex Court was pleased to dispose of the SLPs. by observing that the two representatives of the recognised Union can attend the meetings of the Board and they would be entitled to function on the Board of Directors, however, the same would be subject to the final decision in the Writ Petition and the Apex Court requested this Court to dispose of the above Writ Petition within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of it’s order. After the disposal of the SLPs. After the disposal of the SLPs. by the Apex Court it appears that the Respondent no.5 Sugar factory forwarded the Agenda for the meeting of the Board of Directors slated for 17.11.2007 to the Respondent nos.7 and 8 and accordingly it is the case of the Respondents that the said Respondents 7 and 8 attended the said meeting as the representatives of the workers on the Board of Directors. Similarly the Respondents 7 and 8 attended the meeting dated 28.12.2007 of the Board of Directors in the said capacity. In the light of the aforesaid developments that have taken place after the filing of the present Petition, it would have to be considered whether the reliefs sought in the Petition if at all could be granted to the Petitioner. 10. I have heard the learned counsel Shri S.K. Shelke for the Petitioner Union, Shri S.K. Kadam, learned AGP. for the Respondents 1 to 4, Shri R.N. Dhorde for the Respondent no.5, Shri N.B. Suryawanshi for the Respondent no.6 and Shri S.K. Shinde for the Respondent nos. 7 and 8. 11. On behalf of the Petitioner, it is contended by Shri S.K. Shelke that notwithstanding the subsequent developments, wherein the Respondent no.6 is now the recognised Union, the fact remains that the issue would have to be decided on the basis of the position prevailing in the year 2005 when admittedly the Petitioner Union was the recognised Union. Shri Shelke submitted that inspite of the Petitioner Union being the recognised Union at the relevant time, the mandate of section 73 BB was not followed by the Sugar factory by accepting the members nominated by the Petitioner Union on the Board of Directors. It is further submitted by Shri Shelke that the grievance in respect of the nominees selected by the Petitioner Union can only be made by the members of the Petitioner Union and none else as otherwise, in respect of the challenge to its status as a recognized Union etc. the remedy is provided under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. Shri Shelke submitted that on account of the Respondent no.5 not complying with the mandate of Section 73BB of the said Act, that the Petitioner Union was forced to file the earlier Writ Petition no. 4390 of 2006 which resulted in the Division Bench directing the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) to decide the said issue. Shri Shelke submitted that on account of the Respondent no.5 not complying with the mandate of Section 73BB of the said Act, that the Petitioner Union was forced to file the earlier Writ Petition no. 4390 of 2006 which resulted in the Division Bench directing the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) to decide the said issue. Shri Shelke submitted that the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) has totally mis-directed himself by directing a meeting to be held for electing the two persons nominated on the Board of Directors. The said direction of the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) as contained in the order dated 11.1.2007 was unsustainable in view of the clear mandate of Section 73BB wherein the exclusive right is conferred on the recognised Union to send the two nominees on the Board of Directors. Shri Shelke further submitted that the provisions of Section 73FF of the said Act, were not applicable to the nominated Directors under Section 73BB of the said Act and therefore the Regional Joint Director, Sugar inasmuch as he has not accepted the nomination of the said two employees selected by the Petitioner Union on the said ground is erroneous. The learned counsel submitted that except to the extent mentioned in Section 73 FF (VI), of the said Act, the disqualification under the said provision does not apply to the nominated Directors who are the representatives of the workers. Shri Shelke lastly submitted that the order of the Regional Joint Director, Sugar was therefore unsustainable. 12. On behalf of the State and it’s authorities, the learned AGP Shri S.K. Kadam, submitted that in view of the dispute that had arisen in respect of the two persons selected by the Petitioner Union, and considering the provisions of Section 73BB of the said Act, the Regional Joint Director had issued, the direction for holding a meeting to select the said two representatives of the workers. Considering the situation that was prevailing, Shri Kadam submitted that it could not be said that the said direction, was in contravention of Section 73 BB of the said Act. 13. Considering the situation that was prevailing, Shri Kadam submitted that it could not be said that the said direction, was in contravention of Section 73 BB of the said Act. 13. On behalf of the Respondent no.5 Shri R.N. Dhorde the learned counsel submitted that the Respondent no.5 Sugar factory apprehended threat to industrial peace, and had acted in the manner it had done on account of the opposition of two members of the Managing Council of the Petitioner Union itself as well as the representation received from 29 workers of the Respondent Sugar factory as well as the objections received from time to time from about 950 members of the Sugar factory. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the order of the Regional Joint Director, Sugar in the said circumstances could not be faulted with. The learned counsel lastly submitted that in view of the subsequent developments the above Petition has in fact become infructuous. 14. On behalf of the Respondent no.6 Union, Shri N.B. Suryawanshi the learned counsel submitted that in view of the strong opposition, within the Petitioner Union itself to the nomination of the said two persons selected by the Petitioner Union, as well as the objection taken by as many as 950 workers of the Respondent no.5 Sugar factory the directions of the Regional Joint Director, Sugar as contained in his order dated 11.1.2007 could not be faulted with. Relying upon the provisions of Section 73 BB of the said Act, the learned counsel submitted that the said action of holding a meeting to select the said two nominees of the workers was ingrained in Section 73 BB of the said Act. The Regional Joint Director in view of the directions of this Court in Writ Petition no. 4390 of 2006, had directed the holding of the meeting to select the two nominees. In sofar as the application of Section 73 FF to the nominated directors under Section 73 BB is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that application of section 73 FF to the representatives of workers under Section 73 BB is not ruled out and that it’s application is not restricted in any manner. In sofar as the application of Section 73 FF to the nominated directors under Section 73 BB is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that application of section 73 FF to the representatives of workers under Section 73 BB is not ruled out and that it’s application is not restricted in any manner. The learned counsel for the Respondent no.6 submitted that in view of the subsequent developments, wherein the Respondent no.6 is now the recognised Union, the Petitioner now cannot have a grievance as it is the Petitioner’s case that the mandate of Section 73 BB should be allowed to run it’s full course, according to the learned counsel for the Respondent no.6, in view of the status of the recognised Union granted to the Respondent no.6, and in view of the order passed by the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Respondent no.6 the above Petition has become infructuous. 15. On behalf of the Respondents 7 and 8 Shri S.K. Shinde the learned counsel adopted the submissions made by Shri Dhorde and Shri Suryawanshi, but in addition submitted that the Respondents 7 and 8 pursuant to the recognition of the Respondent no. 6 as a recognised Union have been attending the meetings of the Board of Directors of the Respondent no.5 Sugar Factory as the representatives of the workers. 16. Since the controversy in the Petition, relates to the two representatives of the workers, who are to be nominated, on the Board of Directors of Respondent no.5 Sugar factory in terms of Section 73BB of the said Act, and in view of the challenge raised in the Petition, to the order passed by the Regional Joint Director, Sugar dated 11.1.2007, it would be relevant, to reproduce the relevant portion of Section 73BB (1) of the said Act, which reads as under. .(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 member 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 and where there is no union at or where there is a dispute in relation to such issues including whether a union is recognised or not, then the seats so reserved shall be filed 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 purpose of this section the members of the committee shall mean and include elected, appointed, nominated, co-opted as well as ex-office members of the committee but it shall not include the representatives of the employees.] . What emerges from a reading of the said Section is that the seats reserved for the two representatives of the workers are to be filled in by the selection made by the recognised Union, or Unions. Therefore, the recognised Union has been given the primacy in the matter of selection of the said two persons. A reading of the subsequent part of the said section, discloses that if there is a dispute, regarding the said issues including whether Union is a recognised or not, then the seat so reserved shall be filled by election by such employees from amongst those in the prescribed manner. Rest of the said section is not material for the purposes of the present Petition. In the instant case, as the facts disclose two members of the managing Council of the Petitioner Union, had objected to the selection of the said two persons namely Chattar and Warpe who were selected by the Petitioner Union, objection was taken by about 29 workers of the Respondent no.5 Sugar factory by addressing a letter to the Managing Director. About 950 workers of the Petitioner no.5 Karkhana had also from time to time submitted their objections to the selection of the said two persons. About 950 workers of the Petitioner no.5 Karkhana had also from time to time submitted their objections to the selection of the said two persons. In the said context therefore, the direction of the Regional Joint Director of Sugar in the impugned order dated 11.1.2007 directing holding of meeting for selection of the said two persons cannot be said to be beyond the scope of Section 73 BB of the said Act as the said section itself provides that if there is a dispute in relation to "such issues" which in my view would cover the objections raised by the two Managing Council members as well as the objection raised by the workers of the Petitioner no.5 Sugar factory and therefore in that context, the Regional Joint Director of Sugar, had issued a direction for holding of a meeting to select the said two persons. The apprehension of the Respondent no.5 Sugar factory of threat to the industrial peace was also not misfounded as 950 workers who had objected constitute a substantial number of the total number of the workers of the Sugar factory. In that context also, the impugned order of the Regional Joint Director of Sugar cannot be said to be beyond the scope of Section 73BB as is sought by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 17. The question that arises is whether on account of the subsequent developments, which have been narrated hereinabove whether the Petition has become infructuous as is contended by the learned counsel for the Respondents. As mentioned hereinabove, the primacy of the powers under Section 73BB are vested with the recognised Union to select the two persons to be sent on the Board of Directors as the workers’ representatives. There cannot be any dispute about that. Second contingency arises only if a dispute arises about the selection made by the recognised Union. As indicated in the above Petition interim reliefs were granted on 2.7.2007, whereby the impugned order of the Regional Joint Director, Sugar dated 11.1.2007 came to be stayed and the said two persons selected by the Petitioner Union namely Chattar and Warpe were allowed to continue pending the disposal of the Petition/till the term of the Board of Directors comes to an end whichever was earlier. This order was passed, by the learned Judge considering the provisions of Section 73BB, and 73FF of the Act. This order was passed, by the learned Judge considering the provisions of Section 73BB, and 73FF of the Act. Therefore the directions contained in the order of the Regional Joint Director, Sugar dated 11.1.2007 were stayed. The matter thereafter ultimately reached the Apex Court by way of the SLPs. being nos. 15265 of 2007 and 15266 of 2007. In the said SLPs., the Respondent no.6 Union, had filed interim applications, to place on record the subsequent events. The Apex Court disposed of the said SLPS. by observing that the said representatives, of the recognised Union would be entitled to participate in the meeting of the Board of Directors subject to the result of the instant Petition. The interim order dated 2.7.2007 passed by this Court, is therefore merged in the order passed by the Apex Court in the said SLPs. 18. Though various contentions have been raised on behalf of the Petitioner Union, as regards the order of the Joint Director (Sugar) impugned in the present Petition in view of the fact, that the said order was not brought into operation in view of the interim order dated 2.7.2007 passed in the above Petition which has ultimately merged in the order passed by the Apex Court in the SLPs, in my view, the said contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner, need not be considered. There is therefore considerable merit, in the submissions made on behalf of the Respondent no.6 Union and the Respondent nos. 7 and 8 that the subsequent events as they super-impose themselves on the order dated 11.1.2007 passed by the Regional Joint Director of Sugar, and therefore the challenge in the Petition itself does not survive. In my view, the mandate of Section 73BB in view of the recognition of the Respondent no.6 Union, and the selection of the two persons by it, who are now on the Board of Directors has been complied with, obviously the Petitioner Union, who had filed the earlier Writ Petition no. 4390 of 2006, for compliance of the said mandate cannot now have a grievance about the same. Though the Petitioner Union has filed an Appeal against the recognition granted to the Respondent no.6 Union that can have no effect on the representatives selected by the Respondent no.6 Union on the Board of Directors as the said recognition has been granted to the Respondent no. Though the Petitioner Union has filed an Appeal against the recognition granted to the Respondent no.6 Union that can have no effect on the representatives selected by the Respondent no.6 Union on the Board of Directors as the said recognition has been granted to the Respondent no. 6 Union after following the procedure prescribed for the same. 19. In that view of the matter, on account of the subsequent events having super-imposed themselves, on the challenge raised in the Petition, no reliefs can be granted to the Petitioner Union in the instant Petition. The Petition is therefore dismissed and Rule discharged with parties to bear their respective costs. Petition dismissed.