Order This is a reference at the instance of the Registrar of this Court† as to whether the proposed appeal should validly be entertained on the Appellate Side of † Note for Orders of Court — Re: S.R. Mo. 17133 of 1958 — C.M.A. : — The above S. R. is sought to be filed under section 11 of the Indian Trade Unions Act, XVI of 1926, as a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The question for consideration is whether the said Appeal styled as a C.M.A. can be entertained in the Appellate Side in view of the provisions in sub-clause (3) of section 11 of the Act which appear to indicate that an appeal preferred to the High Court under that section should come before a Judge sitting singly on the Original Side as if it were a suit under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, as explained in the Calcutta decision cited below. Section 11 (3) of the Act provides: — “For the purpose of an appeal under sub-section (1) an Appellate Court shall follow the same procedure and have the same powers as it follows and has when trying a suit under the Civil Procedure Code........” The original proceedings were started in this case by a petition, dated 23rd December, 1957 for the registration of the Tamilnad Non-Gazetted Officers’ Union under the Trade Unions Act. The Registrar of Trade Unions, Madras, holding that the relationship of Workmen and Employers under section 2 (g) of the Act is not fully satisfied in the case of ministerial employees of Administrative Department or Offices of Government rejected the petition by order, dated 10th May, 1958. It is against this order that the present S. R. is filed as a C.M.A. under section 11 of the Act. To the objection as to its maintainability on the Appellate Side the counsel for the appellant contends that on the analogy of the provisions in section 20 of the Workmens’ Compensation Act VIII of 1923 this appeal may be entertained as a C.M.A. on the Appellate Side. It is not shown how the analogy of the provisions contained in another enactment can be extended to a case of this kind. It has been held in a decision of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court reported in In re Inland Steam Navigations Workmen’s Union, (1935) I.L.R. 63 Cal. It is not shown how the analogy of the provisions contained in another enactment can be extended to a case of this kind. It has been held in a decision of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court reported in In re Inland Steam Navigations Workmen’s Union, (1935) I.L.R. 63 Cal. 565 at 574, that a matter this Court. Certain ministerial employees of the Government departments formed themselves into an association known as the Tamilnad Non-Gazetted Government Officers’ Union and applied to the Registrar of Trade Unions, Madras, the respondent herein for registration of their association as a Trade Union under the Indian Trade Unions Act (XVI of 1926). The Registrar declined to register the Union. Thereupon the Tamilnad Non-Gazetted Government Officers’ Union (assuming for the present purpose that it is a legal entity even before the registration) and one T.S. Krishniah filed an appeal on the Appellate Side of this Court purporting to be under section 11 of the Indian Trade Unions Act. The office took objection that an appeal under section 11 of the Indian Trade Unions Act is entertainable only on the Original Side of this Court. As the matter involved was a question of procedure it was posted for orders before the Court. Section 11 (1) of the Act runs as follows: "Any person aggrieved by any refusal of the Registrar to register a Trade Union or by the withdrawal... .may within such period as may be prescribed appeal (a) where the head office of the Trade Union is situated within the limits of a Presidency Town to the High Court or (A) where the head office is situated in any other area to such Court not inferior to the Court of an Additional or Assistant Judge of a principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction as the appropriate government may appoint in this behalf for that area." For the purpose of an appeal under sub-section (1) an appellate Court shall so far as may be, follow the same procedure and have the same powers as it follows and has when trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and may direct by whom the whole or any part of the costs of the appeal shall be paid and such costs shall be recovered as if they had been awarded in a suit under the said Code. Sub-section (3) extracted above makes it clear that the jurisdiction of the Court is original in nature and the procedure that is applicable to the suits is enjoined in the conduct of the enquiry. The further question is whether even if the jurisdiction is original the matter should be entertained on the Original Side of the High Court and not on its Appellate Side as in the case of certain original writs that are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Section 11(1) itself indicates that the intention of the Legislature was that the jurisdiction should be on the Original Side of this Court. The expression "Presidency Town" in section 11 (1) (a) can only refer to the towns where the High Court has Original Civil Jurisdiction. Presidency town has been defined in section 3 (44) of the General Clauses Act(X of 1897) as meaning the local limits for the time being of the ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, Madras or Bombay as the case may be. In cases where the High Courts are situate outside the Presidency Towns it would appear that they would have no jurisdiction to entertain appeals as section 11 (b) expressly states that in regard to such areas any Court not inferior to the Court of an Additional or Assistant Judge of a principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction as the appropriate government may appoint in this behalf for that area would have such jurisdiction. One of the conditions in the section for investing authority to hear appeal is that the Court should have Original Jurisdiction. That is consistent with the object of the Legislature in providing that such appeals should be heard as if they were suits. In this view I am supported by a decision of the Calcutta High Court in In re Inland Steam Navigation Workers’ Union:1. arising under section 11 of the Trade Unions Act should come before a Judge sitting on the Original Side of the High Court, in the same way as if he were try gian suit under the Civil Procedure Code. The advocate herein contends that this decision is not binding on this High Court. It has not been also shown why the provisions of the amended Act, XLV of 1947, have not been availed of while seeking the remedy under the Act. The advocate herein contends that this decision is not binding on this High Court. It has not been also shown why the provisions of the amended Act, XLV of 1947, have not been availed of while seeking the remedy under the Act. In the circumstances set out above it is for consideration and orders whether the present appeal styled as a C.M.A. may be entertained on the Appellate Side and if not, whether the provisions of section 11 of the Act do not contemplate the filing of this S. R. on the Original Side of the High Court. Submitted. Mr.Ramachandran, learned advocate appearing for the appellants in the proposed appeal has invited my attention to section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act by which appeal against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation is provided to lie into the High Court in certain matters. In this connection he referred to the practice of the High Court in entertaining such appeals on the Appellate Side. A perusal of section 30 of the said Act would show that the High Court is given appellate jurisdiction and not original jurisdiction as in the instant case. I am therefore of the opinion that we cannot conclude on the basis of mere analogy of section 30 of the Workmens’ Compensation Act that an appeal against the order of the Registrar of Trade Unions is entertainable on the Appellate Side. I agree with the office that the appeal should be filed on the Original Side of the High Court. The papers will be returned to the Advocate. V.S. ------------ Papers returned.