Summarize the following court judgment. ivil Appeal No. 18 '1 of 1974. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 18th June 1974 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 460 of 1974. K. R. Nambiar for the appellant. L. N. Sinha	 Sol. General of India and Girish Chandra for respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA	 J. This is an appeal by special leave against a judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The appellants are office bearers of the Civil Employees Unions in the various Centers of the Defence Establishments of Secunderabad and Hyderabad. They filed a writ petition in the High Court to impugn the authority of the Commandants (Respondents 2 and 3 herein) in declaring the Unions	 represented by the appellants as unlawful associations. The Registrar of Trade Unions had issued Certificates of Registration to the four Unions represented by the appellants between 1954 and 1970. The General Secretary of Class IV	 Civil Employees Union	 Bolaram	 Secunderabad was informed	 per letter dated 770 12 5 1971	 by 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. 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 article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. In their reply affidavit	 the respondents averred that the Civilian Non Combatants in the Defence Establishments were governed by the 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. The learned Judge of the High Court	 who tried the petition	 held that the right of the appellants to form associations given by article 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. The main contention of Mr. K. R. Nambiyar	 appearing for the appellants is that the members of the Unions represented by the appellants	 though attached to the Defence Establishments	 are civilians '	 designated as "Non Combatants Un Enrolled". They include cooks	 chowkidars	 laskars	 barbers	 carpenters	 mechanics	 boot makers	 tailors etc. They are governed by the Civil Service Regulations for purposes of discipline	 leave	 pay etc. and are also eligible to serve upto the age of 60 years unlike that of the members of the Armed Forces. In view of these admitted facts	 proceeds the argument	 these categories of civilian employees	 attached to the Defence Establishments	 could not be validly called "members of the Armed Forces" covered by article 33 of the Constitution. The points sought to be made out are: that the members of the appellants ' Unions are not subject to the as they do not fall under any of the categories enumerated in sub clauses (a) to (i) of section 2 of the 	 and that the impugned notifications are ultra vires the and are struck by articles 19(1)(c) and 33 of the Constitution. For reasons that follow	 the contentions must be repelled. Article 33 of the Constitution provides an exception to the pre ceding Articles in Part III including article 19(1) (c). By Article 33	 Parliament is empowered to enact law determining to what extent any of the rights conferred by Part III shall	 in their application	 to the members of the Armed Forces or Forces charged with the main tenance of public order	 be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure 771 the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them. In enacting the 	 in so far as it restricts or abrogates any of the fundamental rights of the members of the Armed Forces	 Parliament derives its competence from Art.33 of the Constitution. Section 2(1) of the Act enumerates the persons who are subject to the operation of this Act. According to sub clause (i) of this section	 persons governed by the Act	 include "persons not otherwise subject to military law who	 on active service	 in camp	 on the march or at any frontier post specified by the Central Government by notification in this behalf	 are employed by	 or are in the service of	 or are followers of	 or accompany any portion of the regular army. " 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 are non combatants and are in some 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 article 33. Consequently	 by virtue of section 21 of the 	 the Central Government was competent by notification to make rules restricting or curtailing their fundamental rights under article 19(1) (c). Rule 19(ii) of the Army Rules	 1954	 imposes a restriction on the fundamental rights in these terms. "No persons subject to the Act shall without the express sanction of the Central Government: (i) xx xx xx (ii) be a member of	 or be associated in any way with	 any trade union or labour union	 or any class of trade or labour unions " In exercise of its powers under s.4 of the Defence of India Act	 the Government of India has by notification dated 11 2 1972	 provided that all persons not being members of the Armed Forces of the Union	 who are attached to or employed with or following the regular Army shall be subject to the military law. The 	 has also been made applicable to them. By another notification dated 23 2 1972	 issued 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 further empowers the Central Government to declare by notification	 persons not covered by section (i) of section 3 also as persons on active service. 772 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 article 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution. The appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

On the question whether civilian employees of Defence Establishments have the right to form trade unions under Art	 19(1) (c) of the Constitution	 ^ HELD: Article 33 of the Constitution provides an exception to the Preceding Articles in Part III including Act. 19(1)(c). By article 33	 Parliament is empowered to enact law determining to what extent any of the rights conferred by Part III shall. in their application to the members of the armed forces or forces charged with the maintenance of public order	 be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them. [770GH	 771A] By virtue of section 2(l) of the 	 the Central Government was competent to make rules restricting or curtailing the Fundamental Rights of civilian employees of Defence Establishments to form trade unions under article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. Although they are non combatants and are in some matters governed by the civil service regulations	 yet they ar? integral to the armed forces. They answer the description of the members of the armed forces within the contemplation of article 33. [771 B D]