Verification of the truth of the claims made by a trade union and its members is essential before granting registration, as employment at a particular establishment or industry is a vital consideration for the existence of a registered trade union.

An unregistered trade union by name ‘Lissie Asupathri Thozhilali Union’ represented by its Secretary one K.L. Paul and six others who claimed to be members of the said union being aggrieved by the order passed by the Registering Authority under the Trade Unions Act (The Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions, Office of the Labour Commissioner, Trivandrum) preferred an appeal under Section 11(1)(b) of the Trade Unions Act before the statutory Appellate Authority, the District Judge, Ernakulam. The appeal was unsuccessful and hence the present revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C.

2. The Registering Authority had the application enquired into by the Assistant Labour Officer of Ernakulam 1st Circle area in which the employer hospital and the applicant trade union are situated. It was reported by the Assistant Labour Officer that none of the applicants were employees of the Lissie Medical Institutions at Ernakulam. Accordingly a show cause notice was issued to the Secretary of the so-called union and the other applicants as to why the application should not be rejected. Though the Joint Secretary of the union submitted an explanation, he was not able to produce any evidence in proof of the claim that the members of his union were employees of the Lissie Hospital. The enquiry conducted by the Assistant Labour Officer pursuant to the direction of the Registering Authority reveals that the applicants are not employees at all of the concerned hospital. Under such circumstances the application for registration was dismissed.

3. The District Court also concurred with the conclusions of the Registering Authority. Before the District Court also absolutely no evidence was produced by the appellants, the present revision petitioners in support of their claim that they are employees of Lissie Hospital.

4. Smt. A.K. Preetha, learned counsel for the revision petitioners invited my attention to Sections 4 and 5 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and submitted that enquiry in the nature of the one conducted by the Registering Authority as to whether members of the trade union concerned are employees of the institution where they claimed to be workers is not at all contemplated. Counsel invited my attention to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Inland Steam Navingation Worker’s Union In re (AIR 1936 Calcutta 57) and submitted that the Registrar under the Trade Unions Act was bound to register the union once it was seen that the objectives of the union did not go outside the objects prescribed by law and all the statutory requirements for registration were compiled with. According to the counsel, the Registrar is not justified in going into other questions. According to learned counsel, the Registering Authority and for that matter the District Court were not justified in denying registration only on the short score that no evidence had been produced on the question as to whether the revision petitioner No.2 onwards are employees of the Lissie Hospital.

5. I cannot agree. Section 2(g) and (h) of the Trade Unions Act respectively deal with trade dispute and trade union. A careful scrutiny of these provisions will certainly reveal that an essential qualification in the nature of a sine qua non for anybody to form a trade union is that the members of the union are employed in a trade or industry. In the present case the claim of the revision petitioners were specifically that they are employees of the Lissie Hospital and they do not have a claim that they are employed elsewhere. In other words, the question as to whether they are workmen (in this case workmen of Lissie Medical Institutions) certainly has relevance. The Registrar of Trade Union by directing an enquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the basis claim that revision petitioner No.2 onwards are employees of the Lissie Hospital has only anxiously considered the correctness of the fundamental premise on which the first revision petitioner trade union would aspire for registratio