Case Summary
| Citation | In Re Inland Steam Navigation Workers’ Union AIR 1936 Cal. 59 |
| Keywords | Registrar, trade union, section 8 of TU Act, refusal, registration, unlawful, question of law |
| Facts | A trade union, Inland Steam Navigation Worker’s Union, files an application for registration to the Registrar. But the Registrar refused to register under section 16 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1908 by the Govt of Bengal, on the ground that this is a previous trade union, RSN and LGN, and Ry. Workers’ Union, which was earlier declared unlawful. Hence, the appellant filed suit under section 11 of the Trade Union. |
| Issues | Whether the Registrar of the Trade Union was right to pass a decision after relying on the letter presented before the Bengal Government? |
| Contentions | The registrar contented that this trade union was already declared unlawful so it can’t be registered and they are approaching for the new name. He relied upon a letter written by the General Secretary of the inland steam navigation workers’ union to the Govt. of Bengal. |
| Law Points | The court stated that The Registrar made an error in applying. The registrar has to examine the application and look after the trade union’s object for which it was formed. He is not allowed to examine whether the union is unlawful or not. He can’t go into the question of law. The court provided that section 8 of the Trade Union Act, gives powers to Registrar to refuse an application for a union’s registration only on the ground that the said Union has not complied with the requirements as provided by the Act. The duties of the Registrar before registering a Union under this Act are:- 1. To examine the application presented for registration. 2. To look into the objects for which the Union was formed. 3. To examine whether the said objects are intra vires or ultra vires of the act. |
| Judgement | Court sent back the matter to the Registrar to consider whether the requirements of registration is compiled or not. Appeal allowed. |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
C.J. DERBYSHIRE, J. – This matter comes to us by way of appeal from the Registrar of Trade Unions for Bengal. The appeal is brought under S. 11, Trade Unions Act of 1926.
In the petition which brings the matter before us it is stated that on 8th March 1935 a meeting of the employees of all Inland Steamer Services in the Province of Bengal was held at Jorabagan Park in the town of Calcutta and the employees assembled resolved to form a Union in the name of “Inland Steam Navigation Workers’ Union” and the said Union was formed on the date. It is also stated in para 2 that the rules of the said “Inland Steam Navigation Workers’ Union” were so framed as to enable all employees of all Inland Steamer Services in India to become members of the said Union and the subscription was fixed on a monthly basis. Para 3 states that thereafter, on the 26th March 1935, an application was filed before the Registrar of Trade Unions for registration of the said Union under the provisions of the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926. Para 4 states that thereupon, on the 16th May 1935, the Registrar refused to register the Union and passed the following order:
The application below purports to be an application for registration under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926, on behalf of a Union calling itself the Inland Steam Navigation Workers’ Union. A few days before this application was filed, the General Secretary of this Union addressed the Government of Bengal in a letter dated 22nd March 1935 and stated that he had been directed by the general body of the Inland Steam Navigation Workers’ Union, formerly known as R.S.N. and I.G.N. and Ry. Workers’ Union, to approach Government and request that the notification under S. 16, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, declaring the R.S.N. and Ry. Workers’ Union an unlawful association might be withdrawn. The rules and the constitution of the so-called Inland Steam Navigation Workers’ Union are for practical purpose identical with those of the banned Union: the principal officers are common to both and in view of the declaration in the Union’s letter of 22nd March 1935 that this Union was formerly known as R.S.N. and L.G.N. and Ry. Workers’ Union, I have no hesitation in finding that the present application is an attempt to have the Union which was registered on 18th September 1934 and No. 62 and thereafter declared an unlawful association registered under a new name. The application is accordingly refused.
The letter that is referred to by the Registrar is headed Inland Steam Navigation Workers’ Union, Head Office, 209, Cornwallis Street, Calcutta, dated 22nd March 1935, addressed to Sir John Woodhead, Esq., Chief Secretary to the Government of Bengal,
Respected Sir,
Unlawful bodies.
I have been directed by the general body of the Inland Steam Navigation Workers’ Union to approach your good self with the following few lines for your kind information and necessary order:
That the R.S.N. and I.G.N. and Ry. Workers’ Union was organised by me in September last 1934.
That within a short period it had enrolled about 6,000 members and the majority of them are clerks.
That 98 percent members of the Executive Committee including the president belonged to the active service of industry.
That myself was the General Secretary and Mr. S.N. Banerji was one of the Vice-Presidents of the Union who had no connection with any Communist Party in India or abroad.
That except myself, Banerji and few members of the Union were ever allowed to deliver speeches in the meeting of the said Union.
That the so-called communist had no hands or any connection with this particular Union.
That this Union had no connection with Communist International nor its object preached or methods adopted.
That this Union had no touch with the peasants’ movement.
That this Union had never received any financial help from outside nor from any other party in India.
That this Union approached on several occasions the Government Officials and Labour Commissioner to secure redress of the steamer employees.
That this Union submitted an application for a Board of Conciliation: vide Trade Disputes Act of 1929.
That this Union never carried out any programme of mass revolution nor advocated militant communist methods.
That on the 10th March last in the protest meeting neither myself nor Mr. Banerji made any sort of violent speeches which might be in the record of the Police Report.
That Mr. Celson, Commissioner of Police, is personally known to me for the last eight years who can speak well of me.
Under the circumstances, when the Government of India have expressed their desire to lift the ban on genuine Trade Unions, should we not get its advantage?
A favourable decision will highly oblige. I have the honour to be,
Sir, (Sd.) K.C. Mitra
Thereafter, the present appellant endeavoured to open the matter with the Registrar of Trade Unions with a view to secure registration of this Trade Union amplifying the letter that I have read with arguments to show that the appellants were and are Trade Unions different from the one declared to be unlawful by the Government. These arguments were not successful as on 24th May the Registrar of Trade Unions, Bengal, wrote back that he was not prepared to revise the orders that he had made in his letter of 16th May. From that order the appellants have appealed under the provisions of the Act above cited to this Court. This is the
first appeal of its kind which has come before this Court. We are in doubt as to whether the matter ought to be dealt with by a single Judge on the original side or by two Judges sitting here in what is ordinarily called an appellate Court. We directed the matter to come before us. It may be that in future such appeals from the Registrar of Trade Unions in matters of this kind will be directed to be taken by a single Judge sitting alone so that if it should be necessary, evidence can be taken. Now the first thing that strikes me is that the Registrar relied on a letter which was written by the Secretary of the appellant Union to Sir John Woodhead as showing that this Union was, for all practical purposes, the same as the I.G.N. Union which had been declared to be unlawful under S. 16, Criminal Law Amendment Act. He appears to have acted on that letter without giving the appellant any notice of it or without giving them any opportunity of dealing with the statements therein set out.
In my view, if the Registrar was going to rely upon that letter he ought to have brought it to the notice of the appellants before he acted on it and given them an opportunity to say anything that they had to say with regard to it. It is quite true that after he had given the decision the matter was raised again and the appellants were given an opportunity of saying what they had to say. But that is not enough. Such opportunity ought, in my view, to have been given before the Registrar considered that letter – if indeed he ought to have considered that letter at all. The office of the Registrar of Trade Unions is one created by the Statute of 1926 and the functions which the Registrar has to perform are prescribed by that Act. By that Statute, in S. 2(h), Trade Union is defined, and it is defined to be 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. Then there is a proviso which does not come in in this case at all. S. 4 of the Act provides for mode of registration; S. 5 deals with application for registration; S. 6 prescribes provisions to be contained in the rules of a Trade Union; S. 7 empowers the Registrar to call for further particulars and to require alteration of name; S. 8 provides that the Registrar on being satisfied that the Trade Union has complied with all the requirements of this Act in regard to registration, shall register the Trade Union by entering in a register, to be maintained in such form as may be prescribed, the particulars relating to the Trade Union contained in the statement accompanying the application for registration. S. 9 prescribes the form of the certificate of registration; S. 10 deals with cancellation of registration. S. 15 sets out all the objects on which the general funds of the Union may be spent. S. 16 deals with the constitution of a separate fund for political purposes. S. 17 deals with criminal conspiracy in trade disputes. S. 18 deals with legal proceedings and other suits in certain cases. S. 22 prescribes the proportion of officers to be connected with the industry. S. 23 deals with the change of name of the Trade Union. S. 24 deals with amalgamation of Trade Unions; S. 27 deals with the dissolution of Trade Unions. S. 28 deals with the returns to be made by Trade Unions, S. 29 gives the Local Government, subject to the control of the Governor-General-in-Council, powers to make regulations for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. Under S. 29 in the Province of Bengal regulations have been made which are called Trade Union Regulations of 1927. They make provisions for various ministerial acts and duties to be carried on in connection with the registration and the carrying on and rendering of accounts and returns of Trade Unions.
Now it has been said on behalf of the Registrar that he was quite right in refusing to register this Union. It is said that he came to the conclusion on the facts before him that this Union was really the I.G.N. Union under a different name. The I.G.N. Union had been declared to be an unlawful Association. Therefore he was justified in refusing to register this Union. IN my view, the Registrar in taking up that attitude is wrong. The functions of the Registrar are laid down in S. 8.
The Registrar on being satisfied that the Trade Union has complied with all the requirements of this Act in regard to registration shall register the Trade Union….
Then the prescribed form is set out. The new Union may or may not be a continuation of the other Union or its successor. Whether the new Union is or is not the same as, or successor to the old Union, depends on evidence. Until further evidence is forthcoming in my view it is impossible to say whether the new Union is or not the same as the old Union or the successor to the old Union. In my view, the duties of the Registrar were to examine the application and to look at the objects for which the Union was formed. If those objects were objects set out in the Act, and if those objects did not go outside the objects prescribed in the Act and if all the requirements of the Act, and the regulations made thereunder had been complied with it was his duty, in my view, to register the Union. If at sometime that Union is deemed by those who have the power to deal with the matter to be an unlawful association within S. 16, Criminal Law Amendment Act this Union can be proscribed as an unlawful association in the same way as any other body. But in my view the Registrar is not, at this stage, entitled to go into that question; his functions in my view are limited to seeing that the requirements of the Act have been complied with. We have not before us the necessary particulars to decide whether this Trade Union should be registered, and I am of opinion that this appeal should be allowed and the matter should be sent back to the Registrar for him to consider the question as to whether the requirements of the Act, and the regulations made thereunder, with regard to registration, have been complied with, or not. If, on the face of the application, the objects and the provisions for carrying them out are within what is allowed by the Act and the requirements as to registration have been complied with, he should register; if not, he should decline to register. We think, in the circumstances, there should be no order as to costs on either side.
