OUS KUTILINGAL ACHUDAN NAIR AND ORS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 769 · Decided: 20-11-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
• 
) 
.. 
• 
_. 7 69 
OUS KUTILINGAL ACHUDAN NAIR AND ORS 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
November 20, 1975 
[A.N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG, R. S. SAiu;;AR!.\ AND P. N. SH!NGHAL, JJ.] 
Constiti1tio1r of India, -195~Art. 33-Scope of.· 
Ar111y Act, 1950-5. 2(1 )-Cii·ilia11 e111ployccs of defence cstablisli111entl-
I/ cuuld fonn trade zu1io,1s. 
On the-questhion \Vhether civilian employees of_ Defence Establishments have 
the right to !Orm trade unions under Art. 19(l)(c) of the Constitution.. 
_ 
A 
HELD : Article 33 of the Constitution provides an exception to the Pre-
C 
ceding Articles in Part 111 including Art. 19( 1) (c), By Art. 33, Parliament is 
empowered to enact la\v determining to \Vhat extent any of the rights conferred 
by Part III shalt in their application to the members of the armed forces or 
for...e' charged v.·ith the maintenance of public order, be restricted or abrogated 
so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties aad the maintenance of 
discipline among them._ [770GH, 771AJ. 
By "Virtue of s. 2(1) of the Army Act, the Central Go\'ernn1ent was com-
petent to make rules restricting or_ curtailing the Fundamental Rights of civilian 
D, 
employees of Defence Establishments to form trade unions under Art. 19(1)(c) 
of the Constitution. Although they are non-combatants and are in some matters 
governed by the civil service regulations, yet they are integral to the armed 
for;es. They answer' the description of the members of the armed forces _within 
the contemplation of Art. 33. 
[771-D-D] 
C!YIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
1821 
of 
1~~ 
E 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 
18th June 1974 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hydorabad in 
Writ Appeal No. 460 of 1974~ 
· 
K. R. Nambiar for the appellant; 
L. N. Sinha, Sol. General of India and ·Glrish Chandra for respon-
F 
dents. 
· 
· 
· 
· 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SARKAR!A, J .. This is an appeal by special leave against a judg-
mout of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 
The appellants arc office-bearers· of the 'Civil Employees Unions 
G-
in the various Centres of the Defence Establishments· of . Secundera-
bad 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 appel!ants as un-
lawful associations . 
The Registrar of Trade-Unions had issued Certificates of Regis-
tration to the four Unions represented by the appellants 
between 
H. 
1954 an~ 1970. The General Secretary of Class IV, Civil Emplo-. 
yecs Umon, Bolaram, Secunderabad was informed, per -letter dated 
770. 
SUPllEME COURT REPORTS 
[1976]} S.C.R. 
A 
12-5-1971, by the Under Secretary of the Gove=ent of India, 
Ministry of Defence that their Unions could not be granted recognj-
tion 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. 
. 
· 
n 
'!he.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. 
In their reply-affidavit, the respondents averred that the Civilian 
Non-Combatants in the Defence Establishments were governed 
by 
the Army Act and were duly prohibited by Rules framed thereunder 
C 
from .ioining or forming a Trade Union; -that the associations in ques-
. tion 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 Art, . 
19(1) (c) of the Constitution, had been lawfully taken a"ay. He 
D 
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 im-
, .. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
pugneri action was not without jurisdiction. 
The main contention of Mr. K. R. NamQ.iyar, appearing for the 
appellants is that the members of the Unions represented . by the 
appellants, though attached to the Defence Establishments, arc civi-
lians', designated as "Non-Combatants Un-Enrolled". They include 
cooks, chowkidars, laskars, barbers, carpenters, 
mechanics, 
boot-
malers; tailors etc. T
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.