Case: O.K. Ghosh vs. E.X.

Joseph
E.X Joseph was a government employee working in the Audit and Accounts Department at
Bombay. He was the secretary of the civil accounts association which was affiliated to the All
Non-Gazetted Audit and Accounts Association.
The Association was recognized in December 1956, but the Government of India in 1959
withdrew the recognition. Even after this withdrawal, E.X Joseph refused to disassociate with
the organization. Due to this conduct of his, he was said to have violated Rule 4 (a) and (b) of
the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955.
Rule 4 (a) provides that no Government servant shall participate in any demonstration or
resort to any form of strike.
Rule 4 (b) lays down that no Government servant shall join or continue to be a member of
any Service Association of Government servants: (i) which has not, within six months from
its formation, obtained the recognition of the Government or (ii) whose recognition has been
refused or withdrawn by the Government.
An inquiry was therefore conducted by the Accountant-General of Maharashtra, Mr. O.K
Ghosh which found E.X Joseph guilty of all the charges levelled on him. Hence, a show-
cause notice of why should he not be removed was sent accordingly.
E. X. Joseph challenged the validity of the departmental proceedings saying that Rule 4 (a)
and (b) violate the fundamental rights guaranteed to him namely- Article 19 (1) (a), (b), (c),
and (g).
This case talks about the importance and superiority of the Fundamental Rights of a citizen.
In this case Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 and the Constitutional Law clashed
with each other.
The court held that Constitutional rights are superior compared to all the other provisions.
The departmental proceedings against Joseph were quashed.

Case 2: A.C.C. Rajanka Lime Stone Quarries' Mazdoor Union v/s Registrar of Trade
Unions
Petitioner is the Union called "A.C.C. Rajanka Limestone Quarries' Mazdoor Union",
consisted of workers employed in the A.C.C. Rajanka Limestone Quarries' of the Associated
Cement Company Limited.
On 31st of July, 1957 the petitioner sent an application for registration of the Union to the
Registrar of Trade Unions Government of Bihar, Patna. The application was duly received by
the Registrar of Trade Unions on 3rd of August, 1957.
As the matter was kept pending for a long time, reminders were sent to the Registrar to
expedite registration, but no action was taken by the Registrar of Trade Unions. A telegraphic
reminder was also sent, but there was no reply to that telegram also. In these circumstances
the petitioner has applied to the High Court to call upon the Registrar to perform his statutory
duty of registering or refusing to register the Trade Union under the provisions of the Indian
Trade Unions Act 1926.
The court discussed sections 4,5,7,8 etc of the TU Act and ordered the Registrar to deal with
the application as quickly as possible as it was the right of the union under the law.

Case 3: The Tamil Nadu Non- Gazetted Govt. Officers v. Registrar of Trade Union
The Non-Gazette Government Officers such as Sub-Magistrates, Tehsildars, Sub-Treasuries
and the people working under the Home Department and such of their ten members went to
register their Trade Union with the Registrar of Trade Union in Tamil Nadu. However, the
Registrar of Trade Union denies and rejects their application on the ground that the
Ministerial Employees and Government Officers cannot form a Trade Union and therefore a
registration cannot be done.
Primary question was: Can Government Servants and other Non- Gazetted Officers form a
Trade Union?
SC discussed Section 2(g) and 2(h) of the TU Act. It said section 2(h) of the Trade Union Act
under this section would only mean manual labourers or workers of that particular class. SC
also said that the concept of ‘Collective Bargaining’ is important in Trade Union Movement.
However, this cannot be applied to Government Servants. The Government Servants are
employed as per the statute and legislations enacted, wherein their salaries, incentives, and
other formalities such as termination and tenure is also mentioned. While the whole purpose
of ‘Collective Bargaining’ is also to bargain upon and negotiate upon the salaries, incentives,
tenure and termination of the workers. Therefore it was concluded that the concept of
‘Collective Bargaining’ which is important in Trade Union Movement cannot lie parallelly
when applied to the Government Servants.
The civil servants are integrated with inalienable and regal functions of the Government
which are sovereign in nature. The functions that are performed by them cannot be concluded
as an ‘Industry’ as per the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Therefore, these civil servants cannot
be concluded as ‘Workmen’. This concludes that Government Servants do not come under
Trade Union Act,1926 or Industrial Disputes Act,1947.