THE TAMIL NADU NON-GAZETTED GOVERNMENT OFFICERS UNION, MADRAS AND ANR. Vs. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tamil Nadu Non -Gazetted Government Officer's Union is a Services Association which has been recognised by Government, and the membership of which is open, according to Rule 7 of its constitution, to all Non -Gazetted Government Officers employed under the Government of Madras except the Executive Officers of the Police and Prisons Department and the last grade Government servants. The objects of this Association are set forth in Rule 4 of the Constitution, and it is seen that they are beneficent and ameliorative in character, designed along the lines of promoting the welfare of the members in multiple directions. The Association represented by ten of its members applied on 23 -12 -1957 to the Registrar of Trade Union, under section 5 of the Indian Trade Unions Act (Act XVI of 1926). In a brief order, the Registrar rejected this application, in which, after a reference of Secs. 2(g) and 2(h) of the Act, he held that such an Association of ministerial employees of the Administrative Departments of offices of the Government of Madras could not claim to be a Trade Union at all, and was not eligible for registration under the Act. Admittedly, against such an order declining registration, an appeal is provided for under section 11 of the Act, and this was duly preferred as O. P. No. 312 of 1958. The learned Judge who dealt with the proceeding (Ramachandra Iyer J., as he then was) delivered a judgment in which he dismissed the appeal, during the course of which he had occasion to trace, in some detail, the history of the Trade Union movement in the United Kingdom, in order to elucidate certain fundamental principles. This appeal is before us as preferred by the Union and its secretary, from the order of the learned Judge.

(2.) WE shall set forth, a little subsequently, the relevant definitions and provisions of the Indian Trade Unions Act, as well as certain definitions in the Industrial Disputes Act, XIV of 1947; though the learned Judge was definitely of the view that these two enactment are not in pari materia and do not together constitute any code or legislation it at least indisputable that sections of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are also very relevant for purposes of comparative analysis. But before doing this, it is essential for an appreciation of the basis issues, to summarise the grounds upon which the learned Judge (Ramachandra Iyer, J.,) rejected the petition before him. After referring to the definition of "Trade Union" in section 2(h) of the Trade Unions Act, the learned Judge pointed out that a vital consideration would be the content or significance of the word "workmen" as occurring in section 2(h) and he was of the view that this would primarily signify only manual labourers, or workers of that class. This was one ground upon which the learned Judge ultimately concluded that civil servants of the present Association could not be considered as workmen at all. Next, the learned Judge pointed out that the concept of "collective bargaining", which is the rationale behind the Trade Union movement and the existence of the Trade Unions was wholly inappropriate when applied to Government servants.

(3.) AS we have stated earlier, section 5 of the Act entitles a Trade Union to apply for registration, and provides that the application shall be accompanied by a copy of the rules of the Trade Union, and statement of specified particulars. Under section 5(2), where a Trade Union has been in existence for more than one year before the making of the application for its registration, a further general statement of assets and liabilities is required to be submitted. Under section 7(1) of the Act, the Registrar may call for further information, for the purpose of satisfying himself that an application complied with the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Act and that the Trade Union is entitled to registration. The Registrar may refuse to register a Trade Union until such information is supplied. Section 8 relates to registration proper, and section 11 provides for an appeal by a person aggrieved by any refusal of the Registrar to register a Trade Union. This maybe the convenient context for noting an argument of the learned counsel for the appellant Union (Sri A. Ramachandran). The learned counsel argues that where, as in this case, the Registrar did not call for any further information under section 7, he has really no jurisdiction to decline registration. This argument is obviously unsustainable.