REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY Vs. GOVERNMENT PRESS EMPLOYEES UNION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY V. THIRUNAVUKARASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment of the Principal District Judge of Pondicherry, which was rendered under the following circumstances.

(2.) THE Employees of the Pondicherry Government Press constituted themselves into the Government Press Employees' Union and under Section 5 of the Trade Unions Act, applied to the Registrar of Trade Unions, Pondicherry, for registration of the trade union. The Commissioner of Labour, Pondicherry, who happens to be also the Registrar of Trade Unions, sent a communication to the Secretary of the Government Press Employees' Union on 1st July, 1971, regretting his inability to register the trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1962. The ground given by the Registrar for refusing to register the application was, "the present functions of the Government Press, Pondicherry, do not come within the meaning of trade or business". Aggrieved by this order, the Secretary of the Government Press Employees' Trade Union filed an appeal with the District Judge, Pondicherry, in C.M.A. No. 45 of 1971, impugning the order of the Registrar. It was argued before the learned District Judge that the Government Press had been printing challans, gazettes and calendars, which were being sold to the public for a price and that the Government Press was also printing budget papers and papers for the various Departments of the Government thereby rendering service either to the public at large or to a section of the public. This description of the functions of the Government Press, Pondicherry, was not disputed by the counsel appearing for the Registrar of Trade Unions. But, it was contended on the basis of certain decisions, that the employees in the Government Press, being Government servants, were disentitled to form a trade union and therefore; their association was ineligible for registration under the Trade Unions Act. The learned District Judge, upon a consideration of the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, came to the conclusion, having regard to the nature of the activities of the Government Press, that it partook of the character of business and industry and that the workers employed in this industry were entitled to have their union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Consequently, the learned District Judge set aside the order of the Registrar of Trade Unions and allowed the appeal with costs. It is against this judgment that the Registrar of Trade Unions, Pondicherry, has preferred this petition. The Trade Unions Act, 1926, as can be gathered from the preamble thereto, was intended to provide for the registration of trade unions and in certain respects, to define the law relating to registered trade - unions. Under the Pondicherry Laws Regulation, 1963, this Act was extended to Pondicherry with effect from 1st October, 1963. Clause (h) of Section 2 of the Trade Unions Act, defines a trade union to mean, "any combination, whether temporary or permanent, formed primarily for the purpose of regulating the relations between workmen and employers or between workman and workman, or between employers and employers, or for imposing restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business, and includes any federation of two or more Trade Unions". The term "workman" employed in Clause (h) has been defined in this latter part of the earlier Clause (g) of Section 2. Clause (g) runs as follows: 'Trade dispute' means any dispute between employers and workmen or between workman and workman, or between employers and employers which is connected with the employment or non -employment, or the terms of employment or the conditions of labour, of any person, and ' workmen' means all persons employed in trade or industry whether or not in the employment of the employer with whom the trade dispute arises. The question arises whether the workmen represented by the Government Press Employees' Union, Pondicherry, are persons employed in "trade'' or "industry". If they are so employed, there can be no difficulty in holding that their trade union shall be entitled to registration under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Government Press, Pondicherry, cannot be legitimately, regarded as indulging in trade because, it is being conducted without any profit motive. It is true that when the Government Press prints budget papers and papers for the various departments of the Government, it does so without any profit motive. But, in view of the admission that the Government Press has also been printing challans, gazettes, and calendars and has been selling the same to the public for a price it is difficult to eliminate altogether the profit motive from this enterprise of the Government. Even assuming that the Government Press is not a trading venture, the more important question that would arise is whether it is not an "industry within" the meaning of Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent would invoke the definition of the word 'industry' contained in Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act and ask me to give the same meaning to the word 'industry' used in Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Trade Unions Act. The Trade Unions Act was passed in 1926 and I think it rather artificial and unrealistic to give to the word used in an Act of 1926 the extremely wide -ranging meaning, which Parliament has chosen to assign to the word 'industry' in the Industrial Disputes Act, which was passed 21 years later in 1947. No doubt, in Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, ' industry ' has been defined to mean : "any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture, or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation, of workmen." But then, this sweeping definition does not seem to me in accordance with the Dictionary meaning of the word 'industry'. This is a definition which it was open to Parliament to adopt for the specific purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act. I think it, therefore, wrong to interpret the word 'industry' used in the Act of 1926 in the light of the widely extended meaning given to it by a statute of 1947. What, then does the word 'industry' under the Act of 1926 connote ? According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, 'industry' means: (1) diligence; (2) habitual employment in useful work; (3) branch of trade or 'manufacture'. 'Manufacture' according to the same dictionary, means : 'making of articles by physical labour or machinery especially on a large scale; branch of such industry, as woollen, etc' It would be clear from this dictionary meaning of the words, 'industry' and manufacture', that no profit motive is necessarily involved in an industry. There can be little doubt that the Government Press has been manufacturing, with the aid of the printing press, as well as by physical labour, and on a large scale, such articles as challans, gazettes, and calendars, budget papers, etc. It would, therefore, undoubtedly, be an 'industry' within the meaning of the Trade Unions Act, and the respondents, being persons employed in such an industry, must be, rightly, regarded as workmen' within the meaning of the Act. Any combination formed primarily for the purpose of regulating the relations between these workmen and their employers world, then, be a trade union within the meaning of Clause (h) of Section 2 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the appellant would, however, contend that the workmen in the employ of the Government Press, Pondicherry, being Government servants, their trade union is disentitled to registration under the Trade Unions Act, I have scrutinized, in vain, the various provisions of the Act to discover whether workmen employed under the Government have been expressly or by necessary implication, put out of the pale of the Trade Unions Act. We are familiar with a number of special enactments which make it clear that they would have no application to Government concerns. No such provision has. been made in the Trade Unions Act. On the contrary, an amendment made by Parliament in 1947 would serve to emphasize the legislative intention to bring even an industry run by the Government within the ambit of the Trade Unions Act, -1926. I refer to Central Act XLV of 1947 called the Indian Trade Unions Amendment Act, 1947, which received the assent of the Governor -General on 20th December, 1947. In Section 3, Clause (b), Sub -clause (6) of the Amending Act, the word 'employer' has been defined to mean.... "in relation to the industry carried on by or under the authority of any department of the Central Government or a Provincial Government the authority prescribed in this behalf or where no authority is prescribed the head of the department". This amendment reflects the undoubted intention of Parliament to bring an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or Provincial Government within the province of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Learned Counsel or the appellant contends that the Amendment Act of 1947 would come into force only on such date as the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint and inasmuch as the Central Government has not since 1947 made any notification in this behalf, the Court ought not to have any regard for the provisions contained in the Amendment Act while construing the Trade Unions Act, 1926. I am unable to agree. It may be that several new provisions contained in the Amending Act, have not come into force because the Central Government has not chosen to appoint a date by notification. But the Court cannot close its eyes to the fact that Parliament has expressed, unambiguously, its intention by enacting Act XLV of 1947 and making it clear, in its definition of 'employer', that even an industry run by the Government is subject to the provisions of the Trade Unions Act. As I have already pointed out, even without invoking Act XLV of 1947, the only reasonable construction, to put upon the several provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, is that all workmen employed in any trade or industry, regardless of the fact whether the trade or industry is being conducted by a Government or by a private agency, are entitled to combine themselves into a trade union and to get their trade union registered under Section 6 of the Act. This conclusion, which can be independently arrived at, is reinforced by the amending Act of 1947.