A trade union is not considered a state and thus is not subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

J U D G M E N T

Can the election process to the Managing Committee of a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 ('the Act' for short) be interdicted in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? The issue arises in regard to the election to the Managing Committee of 'Aviation Industry Employees Guild' ('the Guild' for short) originally slated on 10.11.2012 which however did not take place in view of the interim order in this writ petition.

2. The Guild which is a union registered under the Act is having its main office at Mumbai in the State of Maharashtra with branch offices at northern, southern, eastern and Kerala region. The Managing Committee of the Guild shall have at least 2 members - one technical and another non-technical - from each region who are to manage its financial and organisational affairs. The tenure of the Managing Committee shall be three years and election officers have been appointed to conduct election in the various regions of the Guild. The petitioner claiming to be a member of the Guild has filed the writ petition to stall the election to the Managing Committee on the premise that the election in the Kerala region is not yet complete. The complaint of the petitioner in essence is that the Kerala region would remain unrepresented in the Managing Committee of the Guild if the election process is permitted to surge ahead.

3. The Guild and one of its election officers have filed a counter affidavit contending inter alia that the petitioner had resigned from its primary membership long ago and cannot prosecute the writ petition. The very maintainability of the writ petition is challenged on the ground that the Guild registered under the Act is not a 'State' coming within Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that the remedy, if any, of the petitioner is to move the Registrar of Trade Unions appointed by the Government under Section 3 of the Act who has a bounden duty to supervise the conduct of election. The writ petition should not have been filed without moving the Registrar of Trade Unions at the first instance whose seat of administration is at Mumbai only. It is further pointed out that steps are afoot to complete the election process in the Kerala region of the Guild shortly and that electees from other regions cannot represent the Kerala region.

4. I heard Mr.S.P.Chaly, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.P.Parameswaran Nair, Assistant Solicitor General of India on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.K.S.Rajeev, Advocate on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition.

5. A trade union like the Guild registered under the Act is neither an instrumentality nor an agency of the State discharging public duty and is therefore not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The question is no longer res integra and this Court though in the context of police protection observed in Chemosyn (P) Ltd. and others v. Kerala Medical and Sales Representatives'

Association [ 1987 (2) KLT 654 ] as follows:-

“12. The State has no deep or pervasive control or domination in the composition or function of the union. There need not be any substantial financial assistance by the Government. A trade union, a body corporate, is not a statutory body. It is not created by statute or incorporated in accordance with the provisions of a statute.

13. The activities of the union are not closely related to governmental functions and are not of public importance. The privileges conferred or the immunities enjoyed by the Union do not impose any public duty on the part of the union. There is no scope for expanding the content of the expression “authority” to cover a trade union. In this view it has to be held that the first respondent is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no scope for issuing any writ of mandamus as prayed for.............”

The following quote from the Administrative Law by