CENTRAL MACHINE TOOL INSTITUTE BANGALORE Vs. ASST LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the management of the Central Machine Tool Institute. Bangalore, the petitioner, is questioning the legality of the registration of their employees' association as a trade union under the provisions of the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926, on the grounds that the institute is purely a research and development organisation without any profit motive and therefore, even if it can be regarded as 'industry' within the meaning of that word as defined in the , it is not a trade or industry for purposes of Trade Unions Act and consequently the registration of the association of the employees of the institute under the Trade Unions Act by the 1st respondent -Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions is without authority of law.

(2.) CASE of the petitioner : The petitioner is this writ petition is the management of the Central Machine Tool Institute situate in Bangalore. It is society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. According to the objects set out in the Memorandum of the Association, the petitioner -society is a research and development organisation established for the purpose of development of machine tools, training of personnel in design, inspection, testing and production engineering methods and for doing research in the field of machine tool technology and other activities of similar nature with are in the nature of research. The Government of India has granted exemption to the petitioner society from payment of customs duty vide Ext. B. The petitioner -society is also exempted from paying applications fees for import licensees vide Ext. C. The revenue receipts of the petitioner society are not treated as in one for purposes of the Income tax Act vide Ext. D. The Corporation of the Bangalore City has also exempted the petitioner society from payment of octroi on the ground that it is an industry vide Ext. E. The petitioner society was established with the financial and technical collaboration of the Government of Czechoslovakia as a research institute with the supply of sophisticated machinery and equipment and services of experts in various disciplines and training of Indian Engineers in the services of the experts in various disciplines and training of Indian Engineers in the research institute for machine tools and machining in Prague. Government of India has also contributed to the establishment of the petitioner -society with matching contributions. The salary bill of the petitioner -society comes to about Rs. 42 lakhs. The petitioner -society receives grants from the Government of India from the Consolidated Funds of India allotted to the Ministry of Industry (Department of Heavy Industry) under whom it is functioning. There are about four hundred personnel on the establishment of the petitioner -society including the supervisory staff. The petitioner -society, therefore, is not an industry within the meaning of the word as used in the Trade Unions Act. The employees of the petitioner -society have formed themselves into an association called 'CMTI Employees' Association' under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act. A communication to that effect was given to the management by the General Secretary of the Association on 10 -5 -1977 (Ext. G.). A further communication dated 26 -5 -1977 (Ext. H) was received from the Association to the petitioner -society to the effect that their association has been registered under the Trade Unions Act by respondent -1. Thereafter, the petitioner -society requested respondent -1 for cancellation of the registration certificate granted to the association under the Trade unions Act urging that the petitioner -society is not an industry and consequently the employees of the petitioner -society are not workmen within the Meaning of that word under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act. Respondent -1 refused to cancel the registration. Aggrieved by the registration of the association as a trade union, the petitioner -society has presented this writ petition.

(3.) SRI K. Shivashankar Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R. Chandrasekharan learned counsel for respondent -2 addressed arguments in support of their respective case.