Case: Ous Kutilingal Achudan Nair And Ors Vs. Union Of India &amp; Ors

2. The Registrar ofhad issued Certificates of Registration to the f our Unions represented by the appellants between 1954 and 1970. The General Secretary of Class IV, Civil Employees Union, Bolaram, Secunderabad was informed, per letter datedby the Under Secretary of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence that their Unions could not be granted recognition as these employees being in the Training Establishments, were not entitled to form Unions. The Commandant also issued a notice to the appellants to show cause why disciplinary action be not taken against them for forming this unlawful association.3. The main ground taken in the petition was that the impugned action was violative of their fundamental right to form associations or Unions conferred by Art. 19(1)(c) of the Constitution.4. In theirthe respondents averred that the Civilianin the Defence Establishments were governed by the Army Act and were duly prohibited by Rules framed thereunder from joining or forming a Trade Union; that the associations in question were formed in breach of that prohibition, and were therefore, validly declared illegal.5. The learned Judge of the High Court, who tried the petition, held that the right of the appellants to form associations given by Art. 19(1) (c) of the Constitution, had been lawfully taken away. He accordingly dismissed the petition.The appellants carried an appeal to the appellate Bench of the High Court. The Bench dismissed the appeal holding that the impugnea action was not without jurisdiction.

Reasoning:
For reasons that follow, the contentions must be repelled.The members of the Unions represented by the appellants fall within this category. It is their duty to follow or accompany the Armed personnel on active service, or in camp or on the march. Although they areand are in so me matters governed by the Civil Service Regulations, yet they are integral to the Armed Forces. They answer the description of the "members of the Armed Forces" within the contemplation of Art. 33. Consequently, by virtue of s. 21 of the Army A ct, the Central Government was competent by notification to make rules restricting or curtailing their fundamental rights under Art. 19(1) (c).In exercise of its powers under s.4 of the Defence of India Act, the Government of India has by notification datedprovided that all persons not being members of the Armed Force s of the Union, who are attached to or employed with or following the regular Army shall be subject to the military law. The Army Act, 1950, has also been made applicable to them. By another notification datedissued under r.79, of the Army Rules, civilian employees of the training establishments and Military Hospitals have been taken out of the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 9 of the Army Act further empowers the Central Government to declare by notification, per sons not covered by s. (i) of s. 3 also as persons on active service.11. In view of these notifications issued under s.4 of the Defence of India Act and the Army Rules, the appellants can no longer claim any fundamental right under Art. 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution.