- JUDGEMENT SUMMARY – OusKutilingalAchudan Nair v. Union of India and Others
- DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 20th November 1975
- JUDGES – Justice Sakaria and Justice Ranjit Singh
FACTS – The appellants in the case are office-bearers of the Civil Employees Unions in the various Centres of the Defence Establishments of Secunderabad and Hyderabad. They filed a writ petition in the High Court to impugn the authority of the Commandants in declaring the Unions, as unlawful associations. The Registrar of Trade-Unions had issued Certificates of Registration to the Unions in this case. The General Secretary of the establishment was made aware by the Ministry of Defence that their Unions could not be provided with recognition as these employees being in the Training Establishments, were not entitled to form Unions.
CONTENTIONS –
Appellant – The main contention of the parties is that the Act of not providing sanctioning is violative of their right under Article 19(1) (c) of the Constitution. The appellants, though attached to the Defense Establishments, are civilians', designated as "Non- Combatants Un-Enrolled". These members are governed by the Civil Service Regulations in lieu of discipline, leave, pay etc. and are also eligible to serve upto the age of 60 years unlike the Armed Forces. Therefore, they are merely working for the defense forces and are not, "members of the Armed Forces" covered by Art. 33 of the Constitution, which modifies certain rights of the Armed forces. therefore, the Unions are not subject to the Army Act as they do not fall under any of the categories enumerated in sub-clauses (a) to (i) of s. 2 of the Army Act, 1950, and that the impugned notifications are ultra vires to the Army Act and violative of Articles 19(1)(c) and 33 of the Constitution.
Defendant – It was contended that the Civilian Non-combatants in the defense establishments are governed by the Army Act and were duly prohibited by Rules framed thereunder from joining or forming a Trade Union; that the associations in question were formed in breach of that prohibition, and were therefore, validly declared illegal. Further, though not combatants these members are governed by the Civil Service Regulations which are integral to the Armed Forces and fit into the description of armed forces as under Article 33. Further, it was submitted that the Army Act was also made applicable to civilian trainees by a Government Notification as they are employed and hence as per the same, they cannot form unions.
JUDGEMENT –
The court dismissed the appeal and held that the appellants no longer have claim to their right under Article 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution based on the arguments made by the Defendant.
