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
Get link
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps
The Tamil Nadu Non-Gazetted Government Officers’ Union, Madras v. The Registrar of Trade Unions, AIR 1962
The Tamil Nadu Non-Gazetted Government Officers’ Union, Madras v. The Registrar of Trade Unions, AIR 1962||Case Summary
Facts
The appellant Union was a Service Association of all the Non-gazetted Officers of the Madras Government except the executive officers of police and prison departments.
Ten members of the association made an application to the Registrar for registration as a Trade Union.
The Registrar rejected the application on the ground that the said association of ministerial employees cannot claim registration as a trade union.
Case History
In an appeal under S. 11 of the Trade Union to the Court of Learned Judge Rama Chandra Iyer, while upholding the order of the Registrar said:-
"Workman" under S. 2(h) of the Trade Union Act includes only manual laborers and workers and does not include civil servants.
The concept of collective bargaining which is the rationale behind trade unions does not apply to government servants.
Also, a trade union has the right to strike and to take part in politics which is not provided to the civil servants.
The appellant preferred an appeal before the Madras High Court.
Appellant Contentions and Arguments
The Registrar cannot refuse registration of a Union existing for more than 1 year until any further information, as per S.7(1) of the Trade Union Act, has been supplied by the Union and been satisfied by the Registrar.
Since the Union of Civil Servants is recognized in the United Kingdom, it shall also be recognized by Indian law, particularly when the Trade Union of Workers of Railways already exists. The services with tenure at the pleasure of the Crown in the United Kingdom shall not be distinguished from services with tenure subject to the constitutional safeguards, for the purpose of applying the Trade Union Act.
Trade shall be used in its widest scope in legal usage as observed by Lord Wright in the National Association of Local Govt. Officers v. Bolton Corporation (1943).
In the Hospital Mazdoor Sabha Case (1960),a hospital subsidized and run by the Government was held to be an "industry" within the scope of the wide definition of S-2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act. Hence, the members of this Union can also be considered as workers in an industry.
The Association also includes members of industrial undertakings of Government, such as Transport organizations, factories of government, etc.
The test for a Trade Union is its object and not its personnel.
Issues
Whether the Registrar was right in rejecting the application of registration of the Union.
Whether the non-gazetted officers of the appellant union like the Sub Magistrate in the judiciary, Tahsildar, Officers of the Treasuries, and Home department of Government are workmen in trade or industry to be registered as Trade Union.
Court's Reasoning
Section 8 of the Trade Union Act empowers the Registrar to refuse registration of such Union which fails to fulfill any conditions of this Act. Since the Union has not fulfilled the conditions set by S. 2(g) and S. 2(h), the Registrar is empowered to refuse the registration.
The regal and sovereign activities of the Government are outside the wide scope of "Industry". Therefore, in the present case, the civil servants engaged in sovereign and regal functions of the Government can not be registered as a Trade Union.
The business intended by the Act is a commercial business and not a business of the State or Government, as observed in Govindarajulu Naidu v. Secy. of State (1927).
Quasi-government agencies or subsidised undertakings which are supported by the Government but managed privately like Machine Tool Factory, Insurance Corporations, etc. have the character of Industry, and the employees have the character of "workmen" under the Industrial Dispute Act.
Persons who are not "workmen" in an "industry" can not form a Trade Union.
The concept of "collective bargaining" where the negotiations take place between an employer and a group of workers regarding the employment terms does not apply to the civil servants whose tenure, dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank is safeguarded by the Constitution. It can only be applied in a contractual relationship between the employee and employer.
Other Observation
The Ld. Judge's conclusion that the term "workmen" is limited to only laborers and semi-skilled manual workers can not be sustained as S.2(g) of the Trade Union Act itself defines "Workman" as "all persons employed in trade or industry". It doesn't distinguish the brain workers and manual workers.
Decisions
The Non-gazetted officers or Government servants are not within the definition of "workmen" in trade or industry.
The learned Judge was right in rejecting the application of the appellant Union.
Appeal dismissed.
Relevant Laws
Section 2(h) of the Trade Union Act includes the relationship between workmen and employers between workmen and workmen or between employers and employers.
Workmen under 2(g) of the Trade Union Act, 1926 say all persons employed in trade or industry.
Section 2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act says "Industry" means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture, or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen.
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
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
Comments
Post a Comment