Case Analysis

The Tamil Nadu Non-Gazetted Government Officers Union, Madras and Anr.
Vs.
The Registrar of Trade Unions, Madras

Submitted By:
Siddhant Singh

Group B; PRN: 14010224053; Class: BBA LLB

Of Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International University, Pune

In
October, 2018

Under the guidance of

Mr. Rajnish Jindal,
Course-in-charge Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
 CERITIFICATE

The project entitled ‘Case Analysis: The Tamil Nadu Non-Gazetted Government
Officers Union, Madras and Anr. Vs. The Registrar of Trade Unions, Madras’
submitted to the Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA for Labour and Industrial Law as
part of Internal Assessment is based on my original work carried out under the
guidance of Mr. Rajnish Jindal from 06/07/2018 to 17/09/2018. The research work
has not been submitted elsewhere for award of any degree.

The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the thesis has been
duly acknowledged.

I understand that I myself could be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism,
if any, detected later on.

Signature of Candidate: Siddhant Singh

Date: 17/09/2018

2
 Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge Mr. Rajnish Jindal, Course-in-charge, Labour and

Industrial Law, Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA for assigning this project to me and
giving me this wonderful opportunity to do a detailed study on it.
I would further like to show my gratitude to Dr. CJ Rawandale, Associate Professor
and Director, Symbiosis Law School.

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.No Content Page No.

1. Detailed Facts 5

2. Legal Issues 5-6

3. Relevant Provision Analysis (other case laws) 6-8

4. Conclusions 9

5. Bibliography 10

4
1. DETAILED FACTS

The Tamil Nadu Non-Gazetted Government Officer's 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 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 the Hon’ble High
Court as preferred by the Union and its secretary, from the order of the learned
Judge.

2. LEGAL ISSUES

The Honorable Court in this case dealt with the following issues(s):

1. Can ministerial employees of the administrative department or officers of the

Government of Madras form and register a Trade Union under the Trade Unions
Act, 1926?

5
2. Can Sub-Magistrate of the judiciary, tehsildars entrusted with the power of
enforcement of the tax-machinery, officers of the Civil Court establishment and of
the Home Department of the Government be included within the definition of
“workmen” in an industry to whom either Section 2(g) or Section 2(h) of the Trade
Union Act applies?

With respect to both the issues i.e. Issue No. 1 and Issue No. 2, the Court held that
the appellant Union, with its wide and unqualified basis, cannot claim to consist of
‘workman’ in an ‘industry’. “The test for a Trade Union is its object and not its
personnel.” But that does not imply that persons who are not ‘workmen’ in an
‘industry’ can form a Trade Union, obviously they cannot for the definitions in
Sections 2(g) and 2(h) could not apply to them, and they could neither raise a “trade
dispute”, nor form a “Trade Union”.

Further held that, “Collective Bargaining” is a right conceded to labor

organisations within the contractual field of the employer and employee
relationship. It would become a grotesque anomaly that if civil service for instance,
were permitted to raise a trade dispute with regard to the dismissal of a civil servant
which may be for activities against the State itself, and in the same breath to claim
that constitutional safeguards under Article 311, which are wholly irrelevant to the
field of contract and to the employer-labor nexus, should be maintained intact for
the benefit of the civil services.

3. RELEVANT PROVISIONS AND ANALYSIS

1. Section 2(g) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926-

"trade dispute" means any dispute between employers and workmen or between
workmen and workmen, 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; and”

6
 The definition of Trade Dispute is almost identical with the definition of “Industrial
Dispute” in the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It is important that there must be some
differences between the parties in order to constitute a dispute. There can be no
dispute by the unilateral action of one party; which means the demand must be
communicated to the other party. Unless parties to the dispute have a direct or
substantial interest in the employment, non-employment, or conditions of labor of
the person regarding whom the dispute is raised, it can not be sad to be a real and
substantial dispute. This was stated in the case of Workmen of D.T.E. vs.
Management of D.T.E.1

“Workmen”- The latter part of the definition clause defines “workmen”. This
definition has two ingredients:

1. “Workmen” means all persons employed in trade or industry.

2. It is immaterial that the persons employed in a trade or industry are not in the
employment of the employer with whom the Trade Dispute arises.

2. Section 2 (j) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926-

"Trade Union" means any combination, whether temporary or permanent, formed

primarily for the purpose of regulating the relations between workmen and
employers or between workmen and workmen, 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:”

A Trade Union is a continuous association of wage earners for the purpose of

maintaining the conditions of their lives. The word ‘combination’ carries a very
wide meaning. Whatever may be the combination, if it is for one or of the other
statutory objects then it is a Trade Union. The Supreme Court in the current case
focused on the phrase “that it is the primary object of an association with determines
it nature”.

1
A.I.R. 1958 SC 353

7
 The Court further said that the specific class of employees have inalienable
functions which can’t be disposed off or can’t be compromised because the task
performed by the employees (Civil Servants) are sovereign and regal aspects of the
government.

Similarly, in the case of Rangaswamy vs. Registrar of Trade Unions2, it was held
that the large section of employees at Raj Bhavan are Government servants who
could not form themselves into a Trade Union because it can not be stated that the
workers are employed in a trade or business carried on by the employers. Only the
persons engaged in in trade or business can form Trade Unions. Thus, the union of
such workers would not come in the purview of this Act so as to entitle it to
registration thereunder.

But the interpretation taken by the Supreme Court in the present case is not a
sacrosanct interpretation i.e., the Court doesn’t restrict all the government
employees from forming a Union but the ones who performs sovereign functions
because the civil servants if allowed to form unions and challenge their dismissal, it
would be contrary to the immunity they get from Article 3113 of the Constitution of
India. Hence, the government employees who are not civil servants and are not
performing sovereign functions can form a Union.

As stated in Registrar of Trade Unions vs Govt. Press Employees Union4,

workers of government press carrying on printing business are persons employed in
trade or industry within the meaning of Section 2(g) and their Trade Union shall be
entitled to registration under the Act.

This is so because mere performing the function of printing can not be said to be a
sovereign or inalienable function.

2
AIR 1962 (Mad) 231
3
“Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State
(1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all India service or a civil service of a State or
holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by a authority subordinate to that by
which he was appointed…”
4
1976 Lab IC 280 (Mad)

8
 4. CONCLUSION

As stated by Bank of India Employers Association vs RBI5, the primary purpose

of a Trade Union is collective bargaining. I feel this relies on the principal that “what
can be a problem for one, can be a problem for the other the next day”. This means
that if an employee faces any dispute with the employer, it would be easy to
negotiate collectively through the Union because the strength lies in the unity.

Therefore, Dyer Meakin Brewries Ltd vs Distillery and Brewary Workmen

Union6, held the right of recognition of a Trade Union by an employer to be a
statutory right.

This right to form a Trade Union acts a safeguard to protect their interests from
getting exploited by the employer. But in the present case, the Court rightly
excluded the civil servants from forming a Trade Union because of their sovereign
functions. It would be vague and abrupt if the civil servants are allowed to do so
because that would affect the public at large and the functioning of the State. Also,
it would be in contradiction with the immunity given to them under Article 311 of
the Constitution of India.

5
1983 2 LLN 872 (Bom)
6
1951 I LLJ 183

9
5. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books:

• Misra, SN. “Labour and Industrial Laws”, Allahbad, Central Law Publications,
1970

• Sharma, JP. “Simplified Approach to Labour Laws”, Bharat Law House Pvt. Ltd.,
2018

Case Laws:

• Workment of D T E vs Management of D T E, AIR 1958 SC 353.

• Rangaswamy vs Registrar of Trade Unions, AIR 1962 (Mad) 231

• Registrar of Trade Unions vs Govt. Press Employees Union (1976) Lab IC 280
(Mad)

• Bank of India Employers vs RBI, (1983) 2 LLN 872 (Bom)

• Dyer Meakin Brewries Ltd vs D &B Workmen Union, (1951) 1 LLJ 183

Legislations:

• The Constitution of India

• The Trade Unions Act, 1926

10