Anantanarayanan, J.

The Tamil Nad Non-Gazetted Government Officers' Union is a services association which has been recognized by Government, and the membership of which is open, according to rule 7 of its constitution, to all Non-Gazetted Government officers employed under the Government of Madras except the executive officers of the police and prisons departments and the last grade Government servants. The objects of this association are set forth in rule 4 of the Constitution, and it is seen that they are beneficent and ameliorative in character, designed along the lines of promoting the welfare of the members in multiple directions. The association, represented by ten of its members, applied on 23 December, 1957 to the Registrar of Trade Unions, Madras, for registration as trade union, under S.5 of the Indian Trade Unions Act (Act XVI of 1926). In a brief order, the Registrar rejected this application, in which, after a reference to Ss.2(g) and 2(h) of the Act, the held that such an association of ministerial employees of the administrative department or officers of the Government of Madras could not claim to be trade union at all, and was not eligible for registration, under the Act. Admittedly, against such an order declining registration, an appeal is provide for under S.11 of the Act, and this was duly preferred as O.P. No. 312 of 1958. The learned Judge who dealt with the proceeding (Ramachandra Ayyar, J., as the then was) delivered a judgment in which the dismissed the appeal, during the course of which he had occasion to trace, in some detail, the history of the trade union movement in the United Kingdom, order to elucidate certain fundamental principles. This appeal is before us, as preferred by the union and its secretary, from the order of the learned Judge.We shall set forth, a little subsequently, the relevant definitions and provisions of the Indian Trade Unions Act, as well as certain definitions in the Industrial Disputes Act XIV of 1947; though the learned Judge was definitely of the view that these two enactments are not in pari materia and do not together constitute any code or legislation, it is at least indisputable that sections of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are also very relevant for purposes of comparative analysis. But, before doing this, it is essential for an appreciation of the basic issues, to summarize the grounds upon which the learned Judge (Ramachandra Ayyar, J.) rejected the petition before him. After referring to the definition of "trade union" in S.2(h) of the Trade Unions Act, the learned Judge pointed out that a vital consideration would be the content or significance of the word "workmen" as occurring in S. 2(h), and he was of the view that this would primarily signify only manual labourers, or workers of that class. This was one ground upon which the learned Judge ultimately concluded that civil servants of the present association could not be considered as workmen at all. Next, the learned Judge pointed out that the concept of "collective bargaining, " which is the rationale behind the trade union movement and the existence of the trade unions, was wholly inappropriate when applied to Government servants. This was all the more so in this country where the civil service was not a mere tenure at the pleasure of the Crown, as in the United Kingdom, but where constitutional safeguards were provided for such civil servants, as in Art. 311 of the Constitution, and the terms of service were themselves the subject of elaborate statutory rules.The Indian Trade Unions Act contemplated not merely collective bargaining, but also the permeation of the trade union by outside influences to a certain extent (Ss. 21 and 22) and definite participation in politics (S. 16). These were elements that had to be totally eschewed, in the public interest itself, with regard to the civil services. A strike, the acknowledged weapon of labour organizations, must be considered inconceivable as n