A. Rangaswami v Registrar of Trade Unions
(1962 Madras High Court)
Jts. V. R. Krishna Iyer
FACTS:
The
Raj Bhavan of Ootacamund (also known as ooty) and Guindy who
were the ‘Domestic Workers’ and they looked after the governor and various
guests. They even helped their families with odd activities. There were basically, 2 groups of workers. One who were providing the domestic help and their
services were domestic in nature. The other worker's duty was to maintain
gardens and to sell the surplus produce of the garden in the market along with the household help and attending to the needs of governor, his family members and guests.
The
102 employees working as the domestic helpers were under the pensionable jobs (like peon, carpenters, sweepers etc.), whereas
the 33 employees working gardeners and maistries of the Raj Bhavan were not granted pension. There are separate rules laid down for their services under article 309 of the Constitution. So, in order to seek better service condition and to felicitate collective
bargain, they thought to form trade union u/s 8 of the Trade Union Act. They
applied with the name of Madras Raj Bhavan Workers’ Union, but the registrar
cancelled their application as per the power provided u/s 10 of the act.
Because
of which they filed a case in the court u/s 11 of the act.
CONTENTIONS:
The
respondents argued that because the activity was not a trade in nature
therefore they cannot be allowed to form Trade Union under the Trade Union Act
1926 by the registrar. Before the union is registered the members must be
connected to any trade or business of the employer. Whereas the activity of
providing domestic help does not fit well in the definition and thus they were
not granted to form union under the act though they can simply form an
association if wanted.
The applicant argued that there is no definition of the term ‘industry’ in the Trade Union act and therefore they need to refer to the meaning of Industrial Dispute Act 1947, which define to include an undertaking would be comprehensive enough to cover the case of employees like these engaged in services at Raj Bhavan who systematically do material services. For the benefit of not merely the members of Governor’s household but the visitors and guest as well.
NOTE: Section 2(j) 'Industry' was included in 1982, whereas this case is of the year 1962.
JUDGEMENT:
Industrial
Dispute Act has the objective of securing industrial peace and speedy remedy
for labour unrest. This objective is not applicable in the case. ‘Trade
Dispute’ under the Industrial Dispute Act means the person employed in trade or industry, whether
or not in the employment of the employer with whom the trade dispute
arises. It is obvious that the industry
should be one as would amount to a trade or business, i.e. A commercial
undertaking.
The court cited the case of Employees of Osmania University, Hyderabad v. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, which said that if there is no relation between the labour and the capital. Then the dispute cannot be termed as an industrial dispute.
The
Madras High Court held that the employees are not allowed to form union under
the act as they do not engage in any trade or business. The services rendered
to the visitors and the guests were ancillary and personal services and are
indirect to their employer. They are done with certain rules framed by the government. The services rendered by them were purely of personal nature. They would not amount to trade and business.
0 Comments