The right to form a union or trade union does not automatically include the right to be recognized by employers or other authorities. Such a right must be acquired in accordance with the provisions of the law and cannot be enforced unless it is so acquired.

( 1 ) I have gone through the judgment prepared by Batabyal, J. appearing hereinafter. For the reasons stated in the judgment, I agree that the appeals are to be allowed and the writ petition giving rise to these two appeals is to be dismissed.

( 2 ) THE right to form association or union is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution. If the union is a union of workers, a recognition of the union by the employers would obviously facilitate the activities of such a trade union. But every activity which facilitates the exercise of a fundamental right specifically guaranteed by the Constitution is not necessarily comprehended in that fundamental right. Even if it appears that a given fundamental right may not be fully exercised without some further or additional right, such further or additional right cannot as a matter of course be regarded as part of the guaranteed fundamental right. The test to be applied is, whether the right claimed is an integral part of the specified fundamental right or partakes of the same basic nature and character as of that fundamental right so that the exercise of such right is in reality and substance nothing but an incidence of the exercise of the guaranteed fundamental right. Reference in this connection may be made to the celebrated decision of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi (AIR 1978 SC 597 at 610-641 ).

( 3 ) IT may be, as already noted, that recognition by the employers of a trade union would go a long way to make the activities of the union much more effective. But from that alone it cannot be concluded that right to form union or a trade union embrances within itself, the right of the said union to be recognised by the employers or some other authority. Such a right must follow or flow from some other provisions of the law and unless such a right is acquired in accordance with the provisions of such law, the same cannot be enforced.

( 4 ) AS pointed out by my learned brother, Batabyal, J. , the petitioner in this case has not acquired any right to be recognised by the Port authorities or to represent their members in the negotiation for settlement of wages etc. , at the national level.

( 5 ) AS stated at the outset, we allow the appeals, set aside the order under appeal, and dismiss the writ petition giving rise to these appeals ; but in the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.

( 6 ) N. K. BATABYAL, J.-The twin appeals-one by The Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta and the other by the Union of India-are directed against the judgment and order dated l6th January, 1992 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in Matter No. 230 of 1989 of the Original Side of this Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 challenging the decision of the Port Trust Authority debarring and/or disallowing the petitioners to participate in the negotiations for wage revision and restraining the respondents, namely, Union of India, the Board of Trustees of the Port of Calcutta, the Dock Labour Board, Calcutta and the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India from entering into settlement and or agreement with other federations of Dock and Board employees to make an effective representation at the national level negotiations of wage revision and other consequential reliefs. Haldia-Calcutta Port and Dock Shramik Union, petitioner No. 1 in the writ petition is a registered Trade Union of which the petitioner No. 3 is the Deputy General Secretary and the petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are the Treasurer and Secretary. The petitioner No. 2 in the writ petition is the second largest Federation of Trade Unions amongst the employees of the Ports and Docks in India and is affiliated to the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangha, a National Trade Union Organization.

( 7 ) THE Board of Trustees of the Port of Calcutta, the appellant (the respondent No. 2 in the writ petition) and the Calcutta Dock Labour Board, the respondent No. 10 i