November 21, 2024
DU LLBLabour LawSemester 4

Rangaswami v. Registrar of Trade UnionsAIR 1962 Mad. 231

Case Summary

Citation
Keywords
Facts
Issues
Contentions
Law Points
Judgement
Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority

Full Case Details

RAMACHANDRA IYER, J. – This is a petition under S. 11 of the Trade Unions Act
seeking to set aside the order of the Registrar of Trade Unions, Madras refusing to register the
union of employees of the Madras Raj Bhavan as a trade union under the Trade Unions Act
XVI of 1926, which for the sake of brevity I shall hereafter refer to as ‘the Act.’

  1. In the Raj Bhavan at Guindy, a number of persons are employed in various capacities
    such as household staff, peons, chauffers, tailors, carpenters, maistries, gardeners, sweepers
    etc. There are also gardeners and maistries employed at the Raj Bhavan at Ootacamund.
    Those persons are employed for doing domestic and other services and for the maintenance of
    the Governor’s household and to attend to the needs of the Governor, the members of his
    family, staff and State guests. There are two categories of employees: (1) those whose
    services are more or less of a domestic nature. They number 102. The services of these
    persons are pensionable and are governed by certain rules framed by the Governor of Madras;
    and (2) those who formed part of the work charge establishment consisting of maistries and
    gardeners. There are 33 such persons employed at Guindy and 35 at Ootacamund. Their
    duties consist in maintaining the gardens. Their service is not pensionable but they would be
    entitled to gratuity at certain rates. There are separate rules prescribing the conditions of their
    service framed under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution. Both the categories of the
    staff are appointed by and are under the disciplinary control of the Comptroller.
    With the object of securing better service conditions and to facilitate collective bargaining
    with the employer, the employees formed themselves into a union called the Madras Raj
    Bhavan Workers’ Union. On 9.2.1959, seven of the employees applied to the Registrar of
    Trade Unions, Madras, for registration of their union as a trade union under the Trade Unions
    Act of 1926. The applicants did not however claim before the Registrar that the employees
    were engaged in either a trade or an industry; the claim was that their services could not be
    held to be purely domestic services and therefore their union would be entitled to the benefits
    of registration under the Trade Unions Act. The Registrar was of the view that before a union
    can be registered, the members thereof must be connected with a trade or industry or business
    of an employer, and that condition not being fulfilled in the present case, the employees could
    not be held to be workmen within the meaning of the Act to entitle them to the registration;
    the application for registration was rejected.
  2. Mr. Ramsubramaniam, who appeared for the petitioners, impugned the correctness of
    the view taken by the Registrar. His argument ran thus. The term ‘workman’ under the Act
    would include one employed in an industry. Although there is no definition of the term
    industry in the Act itself, the definition of the term given in the Industrial Disputes Act should
    be adopted for ascertaining its meaning as both the enactments related to the same subject,
    viz., the betterment of the conditions of labour in the country. If that were done, the term
    “industry” which is defined to include an undertaking would be comprehensive enough to
    8
    cover the case of employees like these engaged in services at the Raj Bhavan who
    systematically do material service for the benefit of not merely the members of the
    Governor’s household but also to visitors and guests as well. Therefore, the employees in the
    present case should be held to be employed in an undertaking by the employer within the
    meaning of that term. Further, as the Comptroller directs the sale of unserviceable articles as
    well as surplus produce of the gardens in the Raj Bhavan, the activity of the employer should
    be held to partake the character of a trade or business as well.
  3. I am however unable to accept the argument. The question whether Government
    servants who form an association amongst themselves would have their union registered
    under the Trade Unions Act, was considered by me in O.P. No. 312 of 1958. I expressed the
    opinion that employees under Government whose service was regulated by statutory rules
    could not form themselves into a union so as to have it registered as a trade union. I am
    informed that the judgment in that case is the subject-matter of an appeal which is pending. It
    is, however, unnecessary to decide this case on the basis of that judgment as I am of the view
    that the claim of the petitioners has to fail on an independent ground as well, a ground which
    was not dealt with by me in the former case.
  4. Under Sec. 4 of the Trade Unions Act, a trade union could apply for and obtain
    registration therefor. That provision states:
    Any seven or more members of a trade union may by subscribing their names to
    the rules of the trade union and by otherwise complying with the provisions of
    this Act with respect to registration apply for registration of the trade union under
    this Act.
  5. It is therefore necessary to consider what would be a trade union. Section 2(h) defines
    a trade union thus:
    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 or 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.
    The term “workmen” has not been independently defined in the Act. But in the definition
    of the term “trade dispute” (which defines such dispute as one between employers and
    workmen etc.), the definition of the term “workmen” is found. That runs:
    ‘workman’ means all persons employed in trade or industry whether or not in the
    employment of the employer with whom the trade dispute arises.
    The term “trade union” as defined under the Act contemplates the existence of the
    employer and the employee engaged in the conduct of a trade or business. The definition of
    the term “workmen” in Sec. 2(g) would prima facie indicate that it was intended only for
    interpreting the term “trade dispute.” But even assuming that that definition could be imported
    for understanding the scope of the meaning of the term “trade union” in S. 2(h), it is obvious
    that the industry should be one as would amount to a trade or business, i.e., a commercial
    undertaking. So much is plain from the definition of the term “trade union” itself. I say this
    9
    because the definition of “industry” in the Industrial Disputes Act is of wider significance.
    Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act which defines “industry” states its meaning as
    Any business, trade undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and
    includes any calling, services, employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or
    avocation of workmen.
  6. An undertaking which is not of a commercial nature will come within the scope of that
    enactment [vide State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1960 SC 610]. The
    object behind the Industrial Disputes Act is to secure industrial peace and speedy remedy for
    labour discontent or unrest. A comprehensive meaning of the term “industry” was evidently
    thought necessary by the legislature in regard to that Act. But the same thing cannot be said
    of the Trade Unions Act. The history and object of that enactment show that it was intended
    purely to render lawful organisation of labour to enable collective bargaining. The provisions
    of the Act contemplate the admission of even outsiders as members and participation in
    political activities. That would itself dictate that the benefits conferred by the act should be
    enjoyed by a clearly defined category of unions. I am very doubtful whether at all it could be
    said that the Industrial Disputes Act and the Trade Unions Act form as it were a system or
    code of legislation so that either could be read together as in pari materia, that is, as forming
    one system and interpreting one in the light of another.
  7. There can be no doubt that if a trade union is interpreted as one connected with a trade
    or a business, it cannot be said that the employer in the present case is having such a trade or
    business. This however is subject to the consideration of the question whether the sale of
    unserviceable materials and surplus garden produce will amount to a trade or business
    activity. I shall refer to it a little later.
  8. Let me assume however that the definition of the term industry in S. 2(j) of the
    Industrial Disputes Act will apply to the Trade Unions Act. It has then to be seen whether the
    authorities of the Raj Bhavan could be held to be employers engaged with the workmen in
    any undertaking within the meaning of the term “industry” in the Industrial Disputes Act.
  9. In State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdood Sabha, the question arose whether the
    employees in a hospital run by the State could be held to be engaged in an undertaking of the
    State so as to entitle them to raise an industrial dispute. The Supreme Court observed:
    It is clear, however, that though S. 2(j) (Industrial Disputes Act) uses words of
    very wide denotation, a line would have to be drawn in a fair and just manner so
    as to exclude some callings, services or undertakings. If all the words used are
    given their widest meaning all callings would come within the purview of the
    definition; even service rendered by a servant purely in a personal or domestic
    matter or even in a casual way would fall within the definition. It is not and
    cannot be suggested that in its wide sweep the word “service” is intended to
    include service howsoever rendered in whatsoever capacity and for whatsoever
    reason.
  10. The Supreme Court held that the definition of the term “industry” in S. 2(j) was wider
    than the conception of trade or business as commonly understood. But an undertaking in
    order to come within that definition would be an activity which involves the co-operation of
    10
    the employer and the employees with the object of the satisfaction of material human needs, if
    organised or arranged in a manner in which a trade or business is generally organised or
    arranged, and if it were not of a casual nature nor one for oneself or for pleasure. It is well
    known that in an industry, capital and organisation, on the one hand, and labour, on the other,
    co-operate to achieve industrial production. Therefore, a mere personal service, however
    much it might have been organised, would not possibly be an undertaking within the meaning
    of the Act; the essential condition is only personal service given to the employer.
  11. Two distinctive features of an industry therefore are (1) that the employer as well as
    the employees should be engaged in the industry, however wide the meaning of the term
    might be; and (2) there should be co-operation between both of them for achieving the
    particular result. The first of the two attributes of an industry is succintly stated by Isaacs, J.,
    in Jambunna Coal Mine No Liability v. Victorian Coal Miners Association [6 CLR 309,
    370] thus:
    An industry contemplated by the Act is apparently one in which both employers,
    and employees are engaged, and not merely industry in the abstract sense, or in
    other words the labour of the employees given in return for the remuneration
    received from his employer. As suggested, not only the words defining
    “industry” itself but also by Schedule B and by such a phrase in the definition of
    “industrial dispute” as employment in industries carried on by or under the
    control of the Commonwealth etc., an “industry” as intended by Parliament
    seems to be a business etc., in which the employer on his own behalf is engaged
    as well as the employees in his employment. Turning to the specific definition of
    “industry,” it rather appears to mean a business (as merchant), a trade (as cutler),
    a manufacturer (as a flour miller), undertaking (as a gas Company), calling (as an
    engineer) or service (as a carrier) or an employment (a general term like ‘calling’
    embracing one of the others, and intended to extend to vocations which might not
    be comprised in any of the rest) all of these expressions so far indicating the
    occupation in which the principal, as I may call him, is engaged whether on land
    or water. If the occupation so described is one in which persons are employed
    for pay, hire, advantage, or reward, that is, as employees, then, with the
    exceptions stated, it is an industry within the meaning of the Act.
  12. There can thus be no industry where the employer is not engaged in common with the
    employees with the definite objective of the achievement of the material needs of humanity
    and that in an organised manner. In the definition of the term “trade union” to which I made
    reference earlier, the regulation of the relationship contemplated is in regard to the condition
    of service of employees which postulates the existence of an employer who is concerned in
    the business, trade or industry. It has therefore to be seen whether in the circumstances of the
    case it can be said that persons in control of the Raj Bhavan can be held to be an employer in
    an industry however widely that term may be understood. The answer to that question
    presents no difficulty and can only be in the negative.
  13. The decision in State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdood Sabha, emphasised that the
    activity contemplated by term “industry” in section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act
    involved the co-operation of the employer and the employees.
    11
  14. I cannot agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the mere fact that
    employees serve the visitors and State guests of Raj Bhavan, nor the fact that unserviceable
    materials and surplus produce of the gardens of the Raj Bhavan are occasionally sold would
    show that there was co-operation between the employer and the employees for the purpose of
    a trade or business. The services rendered to the State guests are personal services to them and
    indirectly to the employer. The occasional sales of unserviceable articles and garden products
    are incidents of the ordinary administration of Government property. They are done in
    accordance with certain rules framed by the Government. They would not amount to a trade
    or business.
  15. To sum up, even apart from the circumstance that a large section of employees at Raj
    Bhavan are Government servants who could not form themselves into a trade union, it cannot
    be stated that the workers are employed in a trade or business carried on by the employer.
    The services rendered by them are purely of a personal nature. The union of such workers
    would not come within the scope of the Act so as to entitle it to registration thereunder.
  16. The order of the Registrar of Trade Unions rejecting the application of the petitioners
    is, therefore, correct. This petition is dismissed with costs

Related posts

Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University AIR 1990 SC 1075

Tabassum Jahan

Surajmani Stella Kujur v. Durga Charan Hansdah AIR 2001 SC 938 : (2001) 3 SCC 13 Family law case analysis

Neeraj Kumar

Smt. Mira Devi v. Smt. Aman Kumari

MAYANK KUMAR

Leave a Comment