RANGASWAMI V. REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, AIR 1962 MAD. 231
FACTS
- With the object of securing better service conditions and to facilitate collective bargaining with the employer, the employees at the Raj Bhavan, Guindy, formed themselves into a union called the Madras Raj Bhavan Workers’ Union.
- There were two categories of employees: (1) those whose services are more or less of a domestic nature. They numbered 102. The services of these persons were pensionable and were 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 were 33 such persons employed at Guindy and 35 at Ootacamund. Their duties consisted in maintaining the gardens. Their service was not pensionable but they would be entitled to gratuity at certain rates.
- 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.
- 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.
ISSUE
Whether services rendered by the workers at Raj Bhavan would come under the ambit of trade carried out by the employer?
CONTENTIONS
- 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 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.
- Jambunna Coal Mine No Liability v. Victorian Coal Miners Association. In this case it was held that “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. 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.”
- In the State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, it was emphasised that the activity contemplated by the term “industry” in section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act involved the co-operation of the employer and the employees. 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 however rendered in whatsoever capacity and for whatsoever reason. The Court questioned whether at all it could be said that the Industrial Disputes Act and the Trade Unions Act form as if they were a system or code of legislation so that either could be read together as in pari materia.
RATIONALE:
- 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.
- 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 succinctly stated by Isaacs, J., in Jambunna Coal Mine No Liability v. Victorian Coal Miners Association.
- The decision in State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, emphasised that the activity contemplated by the term “industry” in section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act involved the co-operation of the employer and the employees.
HELD:
The Apex Court while disagreeing with the petitioners held that:
- The mere fact that employees serve the visitors and State guests of Raj Bhavan, or 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.
- 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 could not be stated that the workers are employed in a trade or business carried on by the employer. The services rendered by them were 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. The order of the Registrar of Trade Unions rejecting the application of the petitioners was held to be correct.
This petition was dismissed with costs.