Employees of the Raj Bhavan were not engaged in a trade or industry and, therefore, their union was not entitled to registration under the Trade Unions Act.

JUDGMENT :- This is a petition under S.11 of the Trade Unions Act seeking to set aside the order of the Registrar of Trade Unions, Madras refusing to register the union of employees of the Madras Raj Bhavan as a trade union under the Trade Unions Act XVI of 1926, which for the sake of brevity I shall hereafter refer to as the Act.

2. In the Raj Bhavan at Guindy, a number of persons are employed in various capacities such as household staff, peons, chauffers, tailors, carpenters, maistries, gardeners, sweepers etc. There are also gardeners and maistries employed at the Raj Bhavan at Ootacamund. Those persons are employed for doing domestic and other services and for the maintenance of the Governors household and to attend to the needs of the Governor, the members of his family, staff and State guests. There are two categories of employees: (1) those whose services are more or less of a domestic nature. They number 102. The services of these persons are pensionable and are governed by certain rules framed by the Governor of Madras; and (2) those who formed part of the work charge establishment consisting of maistries and gardeners. There are 33 such persons employed at Guindy and 35 at Ootacamund. Their duties consist in maintaining the gardens. Their service is not pensionable but they would be entitled to gratuity at certain rates. There are separate rules prescribing the conditions of their service framed under the proviso to Art.309 of the Constitution. Both the categories of the staff are appointed by and are under the disciplinary control of the Comptroller.

With the object of securing better service conditions and to facilitate collective bargaining with the employer, the employees formed themselves into a union called the Madras Raj Bhavan Workers Union. On 9-2-1959, seven of the employees applied to the Registrar of Trade Unions, Madras, for registration of their union as a trade union under the Trade Unions Act of 1926. The applicants did not however claim before the Registrar that the employees were engaged in either a trade or an industry the claim was that their services could not be held to be purely domestic services and that therefore their union would be entitled to the benefits of registration under the Trade Unions Act. The Registrar was of the view that before a union can be registered, the members thereof must be connected with a trade or industry or business of an employer, and that condition not being fulfilled in the present case, the employees could not be held to be workmen within the meaning of the Act to entitle them to the registration; the application for registration was rejected.

3. Mr. Ramsuhramaniam, who appeared for the petitioners, impugned the correctness of the view taken by the Registrar. His argument ran thus. The term "workman" under the Act would include one employed in an industry. Although there is no definition of the term industry in the Act itself, the definition of the term given in the Industrial Disputes Act should be adopted for ascertaining its meaning, as both the enactments related to the same subject, viz., the betterment of the conditions of labour in the country. If that were done, the term "industry" which is defined to include an undertaking would be comprehensive enough to cover the case of employees like these enagaged in services at the Raj Bhavan who systematically do material service for the benefit of not merely the members of the Governors household but also to visitors and guests as well. Therefore, the employees in the present case should be held to be employed in an undertaking by the employer within the meaning of that term. Further, as the Comptroller directs the sale of unserviceable articles as well as surplus produce of the gardens in the Raj Bhavan, the activity of the employer should be held to partake the character of a trade or business as well.

4. I am however unable to accept the argument. The question whether Government servants who form an ass