The Tamil Nadu Non-Gazetted Government Officers’ Union, Madras v. The Registrar of Trade Unions, AIR 1962||Case Summary

Facts

The appellant Union was a Service Association of all the Non-gazetted Officers of the Madras Government except the executive officers of police and prison departments.
Ten members of the association made an application to the Registrar for registration as a Trade Union.
The Registrar rejected the application on the ground that the said association of ministerial employees cannot claim registration as a trade union.

In an appeal under S. 11 of the Trade Union to the Court of Learned Judge Rama Chandra Iyer, while upholding the order of the Registrar said:-

"Workman" under S. 2(h) of the Trade Union Act includes only manual laborers and workers and does not include civil servants.
The concept of collective bargaining which is the rationale behind trade unions does not apply to government servants.
Also, a trade union has the right to strike and to take part in politics which is not provided to the civil servants.

The Registrar cannot refuse registration of a Union existing for more than 1 year until any further information, as per S.7(1) of the Trade Union Act, has been supplied by the Union and been satisfied by the Registrar.
Since the Union of Civil Servants is recognized in the United Kingdom, it shall also be recognized by Indian law, particularly when the Trade Union of Workers of Railways already exists. The services with tenure at the pleasure of the Crown in the United Kingdom shall not be distinguished from services with tenure subject to the constitutional safeguards, for the purpose of applying the Trade Union Act.
Trade shall be used in its widest scope in legal usage as observed by Lord Wright in the National Association of Local Govt. Officers v. Bolton Corporation (1943).
In the Hospital Mazdoor Sabha Case (1960), a hospital subsidized and run by the Government was held to be an "industry" within the scope of the wide definition of S-2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act. Hence, the members of this Union can also be considered as workers in an industry.
The Association also includes members of industrial undertakings of Government, such as Transport organizations, factories of government, etc.
The test for a Trade Union is its object and not its personnel.

Whether the Registrar was right in rejecting the application of registration of the Union.
Whether the non-gazetted officers of the appellant union like the Sub Magistrate in the judiciary, Tahsildar, Officers of the Treasuries, and Home department of Government are workmen in trade or industry to be registered as Trade Union.

Section 8 of the Trade Union Act empowers the Registrar to refuse registration of such Union which fails to fulfill any conditions of this Act. Since the Union has not fulfilled the conditions set by S. 2(g) and S. 2(h), the Registrar is empowered to refuse the registration.
The regal and sovereign activities of the Government are outside the wide scope of "Industry". Therefore, in the present case, the civil servants engaged in sovereign and regal functions of the Government can not be registered as a Trade Union.
The business intended by the Act is a commercial business and not a business of the State or Government, as observed in Govindarajulu Naidu v. Secy. of State (1927).
Quasi-government agencies or subsidised undertakings which are supported by the Government but managed privately like Machine Tool Factory, Insurance Corporations, etc. have the character of Industry, and the employees have the character of "workmen" under the Industrial Dispute Act.
Persons who are not "workmen" in an "industry" can not form a Trade Union.
The concept of "collective bargaining" where the negotiations take place between an employer and a group of workers regarding the employment terms does not apply to the civil servants whose tenure, dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank is safeguarded by the Constitution. It can only be applied in a contractual relationship between the employee and employer.

The Ld. Judge's conclusion that the term "workmen" is limited to only laborers and semi-skilled manual workers can not be sustained as S.2(g) of the Trade Union Act itself defines "Workman" as "all persons employed in trade or industry". It doesn't distinguish the brain workers and manual workers.

The Non-gazetted officers or Government servants are not within the definition of "workmen" in trade or industry.
The learned Judge was right in rejecting the application of the appellant Union.
Appeal dismissed.

Section 2(h) of the Trade Union Act includes the relationship between workmen and employers between workmen and workmen or between employers and employers.
Workmen under 2(g) of the Trade Union Act, 1926 say all persons employed in trade or industry.
Section 2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act says "Industry" means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture, or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen.