Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

Rangaswami v. Registrar of Trade Unions, AIR 1962

By

Rangaswami v. Registrar of Trade Unions, AIR 1962||Case Summary 

Facts

  1. Persons employed at Raj Bhavan of Guindy and Ootacamund, Tamilnadu as domestic helpers, gardeners, and maistries formed a Trade union and applied for its registration before the registrar of Trade Union, Madras.
  2. Although all of them were appointed and controlled by the Comptroller, only the domestic helpers were entitled to the pension.

Case History

  1. The Registrar rejected the application for registration on the ground that members were not associated with a trade or business, which is essential to form a trade union as per S.2(h) of the Trade Union Act, 1926.
  2. The petitioner made an appeal under S.11 of the Trade Union Act of 1926.

Petitioner Contention

  1. The term "Workmen" means one employed in an industry.
  2. Although the definition of an Industry is not given in the Trade Union Act Industry, as per S.2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act includes the services provided by the workers as they were not only serving to the Governor but also to the visitors and guests.
  3. As the Comptroller directs the workers to sell the surplus produce of the garden in the Raj Bhavan, the activity of the employer comes within the scope of trade or business.

Issues

  1. Whether the said employees of the Raj Bhavan included within the meaning of the workmen for registration as a trade union? 
  2. Whether the decision of the Registrar was right? 

Ratio Decidendi

  1. Government employees regulated by statutory rules can not form a union to get registered as a trade union.
  2. Trade Unions as per S.2(h) of the Trade Union Act, 1926 are restricted to a trade or business i.e. a commercial undertaking.
  3. The Trade Union Act and Industrial Dispute Act cannot be read together. Even if we read S.2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act with S.2(j) of the Trade Union Act, the services provided by the workers are personal in nature, as the employers were not cooperating with the employees to achieve a particular result.
  4. The Court in the case of State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, 1960 observed:-
    1. Although the term "Industry" under S.2(j) is a wider term, it includes only such undertaking in which both the employers and employees are engaged with a common object to achieve a particular result.
  5. In the Jambunna Coal Mine No Liability v. Victorian Coal Miners Association the Court observed that there can be no industry where the employer and the employees are not working to achieve the same result. 

Decision

  1. The said employees of the Raj Bhavan are not included within the meaning of the workmen for registration as a trade union.
  2. The decision of the Registrar was right
  3. The petition was dismissed by the honorable Court.

Relevant Laws

  1. Section 4 of the Trade Union Act, 1926 
    1. Any seven or more members of a trade union may apply for registration of the trade union after fulfilling the provisions of the Act with respect to registration.
  2. Sec 2(h) of the Act defines the Trade Union Act 1926-
    1. Trade Union means any combination formed with the objective to regulate the relations between workmen and employers or between workmen or workmen or between employers and employers or to impose restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business which also includes the federation of two or more Trade Union.
  3. The definition of Industry in the Industrial Dispute Act- 
    1. Any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture, or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft or industrial occupation, or hobby/ avocation of workmen. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more