The scope of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 is wide and includes all that which falls within the meaning of the expressions 'trade', 'industry' or 'business'.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal, against order made by Mitra, J. on the 19th September, 1960 by which he allowed an appeal under Section 11 of the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 against the order of the Registrar of Trade Unions, West Bengal, cancelling the certificate of Registration No. 3487 granted to the Employees' State Insurance Corporation Employee's Union. The facts are shortly as follows : The Employees' State Insurance Corporation came into existence the provisions of a Central Act, namely, the Employees' State Insurance Act (Act No. XXIV of 1948 ). It is an Act to provide for certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity and 'employment injury' and to make provisions for certain other matters in relation thereto. At a meeting of (the employees of ?) the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, held on the 7th June, 1956 it was resolved to form a Trade Union of their own. This Trade Union made an application for registration under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926. On or about the 28th August, 1956 the Registrar of Trade Unions, West Bengal, certified that the Union had been registered under the said Act, the certificate number being 3847. On or about the 20th November, 1957 the Registrar issued notice to the Secretary of the Union that it was his intention to cancel the registration of the said Trade Union on the following grounds, unless cause was shown to the contrary. (1) That the certificate had been obtained by mistake and it was wrongly mentioned in the application that the employees' State Insurance Corporation was a 'profession'. (2) That the Employees' State Insurance Corporation could not be regarded as 'trade' or 'industry' and the employees therefore could not be regarded as 'workmen' under Section 2 (g) of the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926.

( 2 ) THE Union showed cause. On the 20th March, 1958 the Registrar cancelled the certificate of Registration No. 3847 with effect from the 28th February, 1958. Against the said order of the Registrar, the Union preferred an appeal under Section 11 (1) (a) of the Trade Unions Act. This was how Mitra, J. came to consider the matter. The learned Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Registrar cancelling the certificate of registration No. 3847 and directed each party to bear and pay its own cost. This appeal has been directed against the said order.

( 3 ) I must mention here a preliminary objection that has been taken in this appeal. It is, that an appeal does not lie. That an appeal does not lie under the Trade Unions Act is quite clear. As I have stated above, an appeal lies from the decision of the Registrar to the High Court under Section 11 (1) (a ). But against the decision of the High Court no further appeal has been provided under the Act. It has been argued however, that an al lies under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Two objections have been taken in respect of such appeal. Firstly, it is said that the judgment of Mitra, J. was itself passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, and therefore, is not appealable, and secondly, there was no declaration by the learned Judge that the case was a fit one for appeal. In my opinion, there is no substance in this argument. A judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction is excluded, where it is in respect of a decree or order passed by a Court subject to the superintendence of the High Court. That is not the case here, because the Registrar of Trade Unions is not a 'court subject to the superintendence of the High Court'. That an appeal lies under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is clear from the Supreme Court decision National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. Chidambaram v. James Chadwick and Bros. Ltd. , AIR 1953 SC 357. That was a case under the Trade Marks Act 1940. The appellants there made an application to the Registrar of Trade Marks at Bombay for the registration of their mark 'vulture Brand', under the Trade Marks Act, 1940. This was opposed. The Registrar r