Trade Unions in India: An Introduction
Trade unions are an important part of industrial democracy in India. Set in the philosophy of collective bargaining, trade unions are organized associations of workers formed to protect and promote their members’ interests in conjunctions with employment conditions, wages, and workers’ rights. The Trade Unions Act, 1926 recognizes their relevance, with unions actively engaged in contributing to India’s labour legislation ensuring a collective voice for employees bargaining with employers.[1]
The genesis of the trade union in India occurs early in the 20th century when the Madras Labour Union was formed in 1918. Several trade unions came up in India in several sectors as a result of increased industrialization and socio-political awakening. All-India Trade Union Congress, 1920 was the first national-level trade union and has always been related to leftist ideologies. Among these trade unions are the Indian National Trade Union Congress, affiliated with the Indian National Congress, the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, and the Centre of Indian Trade Unions.
Trade unions in India existed beyond private sectors. Public sector undertakings, nationalized banks, and even some government departments have faced union formations; however, the scope and legality for such formations remain disputed—especially in the case for civil servants and employees working in regal or sovereign function of the state.
The case of The Tamil Nadu Non-gazetted Government Officers Union, Madras and Ors. vs. The Registrar of Trade Unions, Madras (1961)[2] is crucial in this regard. The judgment of this case has great implications in explaining the application of the Trade Unions Act governing government employees and offers a demarcation of trade unionism in terms of functions of the state.
FIRAC Analysis of the Case
Facts of the Case
The Tamil Nadu Non-Gazetted Government Officers’ Union, an association recognized by the Government of Tamil Nadu, consists of a different group of members including various non-gazetted officers like Sub-Magistrates, Tahsildars, and officers of the Treasury, Home Department, and Civil Courts. The primary aim of the Union was the registration of the Union under the Trade Unions Act 1926 with a view to formally representing employee interest and for recognition with the Act for the benefits conferred under sections 16 to 22 which include forming a political fund, protection from civil suits, and representation in industrial disputes.
On 23 December 1957, the Union applied for registration under Section 5 of the Trade Unions Act. However, the Registrar of Trade Unions rejected it on the ground that the members of the Union were not “workmen” as defined under Sections 2(g) and 2(h) of the Act. Thereafter, the Union filed an appeal under Section 11, which was dismissed by a Single Judge (Ramachandra Iyer, J.). Hence, the matter was carried before a Division Bench of the Madras High Court.
Issue
The primary legal issue before the Madras High Court was:
Whether a service association comprising civil servants engaged in sovereign functions of the government can be registered as a “Trade Union” under the Trade Unions Act, 1926?
Rule of Law
The relevant provisions considered were:
- Section 2(g) of the Trade Unions Act: Defines “trade dispute” as a dispute connected with employment or non-employment, or the terms or conditions of labour.
- Section 2(h): Defines “Trade Union” as a combination formed primarily for the purpose of regulating relations between workmen and employers.
- Section 5: Provides for the registration of Trade Unions.
- Article 310 & Article 311 of the Constitution of India: Deal with the tenure and safeguards for civil servants, establishing that their relationship with the State is not one of contract but of statutory service.
Analysis
An in-depth exploration of the statutory and constitutional framework, the Court recognized the beneficial-oriented and welfare attributes of the Union but went on to say that the Trade Union Act, 1926 requires that a union be formed to represent “workmen” in “trade or industry,” engaged in a contract employment relationship.
Membership in the Union consisted of judicial officers, revenue officers, etc. all other civil servants performing sovereign functions. Hence, the Court explained that, because they were not engaged in any trade or industry and their duties were part of the inalienable and regal functions of the State, these individuals could not be defined as “workmen”.
Also pointed out was that civil servants held constitutional protections under Article 311, they do not fit with the idea of collective bargaining that underlies trade unionism.
There were three categories distinguished by the Court:
1. Core Civil Services: Such as magistrates and revenue officers-engaged in sovereign functions and hence excluded from the definition of workmen.
2. Industrial and Quasi-Industrial Government Functions: Like state-run factories and transport undertakings-where employees could potentially be recognized as workmen, and 3.
3. The Ambiguous “Penumbra”: Welfare and administrative services not clearly falling into any of the above categories.
Trade unions will be prevalent in all other government-run industries like that of the State Transport Corporation, but not in any that are engaged in sovereign functions, pointed out the Court.
Besides, the same would warn against the “grotesque anomaly” that would be if civil servants could raise trade disputes with the government and enjoy constitutional protection negating the need for such disputes.
Relevance of the Case in the Trade Unions Act
The judgment is the touchstone for understanding the boundaries of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, particularly in reference to its application on government servants. It clarified that
- Not all government employees can form or register a trade union.
- The test of registration depends not only on the objects of the association but also on the nature of employment and on the functions performed.
- Civil servants performing essential sovereign functions are outside the definition of “workmen” under the Act and therefore are not entitled to rights, immunities, and privileges that are conferred upon registered trade unions.
- As such, it appears that while there can be trade unions of workers in public sector undertakings (railways, coalfields, banks) that can be registered and given full legal validity, associations of administrative and judicial officers cannot be registered under the Act. This distinction maintains the sanctity of functions of the state and minimizes any possible conflict between constitutional governance and labour rights regimes.
Conclusion
As in other instances, the ruling on The Tamil Nadu Non-Gazetted Government Officers Union vs Registrar of Trade Unions also chances appearing before the Madras High Court as a judicial precedent as far as defining the bounds of trade unionism within public employment is concerned. It firmly appears to consolidate the proposition that the sovereign duties of the State should ordinarily remain outside the ambit of collective bargaining mechanisms-applicable in situations of commercial or industrial employment. By rejecting the registration of a service association consisting of civil servants performing sovereign duties, the Court upheld the principle that such employees fall in between the lines envisaged under the Trade Unions Act. This case has a long history and continues to be cited in adjudicating the disputed applications of service associations for registration. It helps strike a balance between employees’ rights and administrative integrity
[1] The Trade Unions Act, No. 16 of 1926, INDIA CODE (1926).
[2] MANU/TN/0205/1962
Author: Vaibhav Bansal is a second-year B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) student at the National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam.
