UNION MADRAS Vs. TAMIL NADU NON GAZETTED GOVERNMENT OFFICERSREGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tamil Nad Non-Gazetted Government Officers' Union is a services association which has been recognized 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 departments 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 December, 1957 to the Registrar of Trade Unions, Madras, for registration as trade union, under S.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 to Ss.2(g) and 2(h) of the Act, the held that such an association of ministerial employees of the administrative department or officers of the Government of Madras could not claim to be trade union at all, and was not eligible for registration, under the Act. Admittedly, against such an order declining registration, an appeal is provide for under S.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 Ayyar, J., as the then was) delivered a judgment in which the 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, 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.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 enactments are not in pari materia and do not together constitute any code or legislation, it is 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 basic issues, to summarize the grounds upon which the learned Judge (Ramachandra Ayyar, J.) rejected the petition before him. After referring to the definition of "trade union" in S.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 S. 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. This was all the more so in this country where the civil service was not a mere tenure at the pleasure of the Crown, as in the United Kingdom, but where constitutional safeguards were provided for such civil servants, as in Art. 311 of the Constitution, and the terms of service were themselves the subject of elaborate statutory rules.THE Indian Trade Unions Act contemplated not merely collective bargaining, but also the permeation of the trade union by outside influences to a certain extent (Ss. 21 and 22) and definite participation in politics (S. 16). THEse were elements that had to be totally eschewed, in the public interest itself, with regard to the civil services. A strike, the acknowledged weapon of labour organizations, must be considered inconceivable as normal feature of the relationship between the State and its civil servants, at least with regard to essential State functions. This was another vital ground on which the learned Judge considered that this services association was not a trade union, and could not be registered as such. Finally, the learned Judge referred to the memorandum of association and the objects as specified in rule 4, to which we have made earlier reference. Which we have the stressed that those objects were benevolent and ameliorative, and that they could not sustain the interpretation that the association existed for "regulating the relating between workmen and employers (State)" or, in brief, for "collective bargaining" with the State. Upon all these grounds, the petition was dismissed.THE following provisions of the two Acts (Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926, and Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) are valuable for a comprehension of the arguments upon which we are now invited to interfere with the order of the learned Judge. Section2(g) of the Trade Unions Act states :

(2.) SECTION 2(h) runs as follows :

(3.) AN equally important definition is that of "workman" in S. 2(s) in the following terms :