Who is a protected workman?
A protected workman in relation to an establishment means a workman who, being an office bearer or member of the executive committee of a registered trade union connected with the establishment, is recognised as such in accordance with rules made in this behalf.
Rule 61(1) of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, provides that every registered trade union connected with an industrial establishment shall communicate to the employer before the 30th April every year, the names and addresses of the officers of the union who are employed in that establishment who should be recognised as protected workmen. Rule 61(2) makes it obligatory on the part of employer to recognise such number of workers as provided u/s 33 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as ‘protected’ for a period of 12 months, within fifteen days of receipt of the proposal from the union.
However, management is entitled to decline recognition as protected workman to a person nominated by the union, if any disciplinary proceeding is pending against such workman. Union certainly cannot exercise their power under Rule 61(1) to give immunity to an employee against whom disciplinary proceedings initiated by the management are pending, by nominating his name for recognition as protected workman [HLL Lifecare Ltd Vs. Hindustan latex Labour Union (AITUC)]
How many protected workmen?
As per Section 33 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the number of workmen to be recognised as protected workmen shall be one per cent of the total number of workmen employed therein subject to a minimum number of five protected workmen and a maximum number of one hundred protected workmen.
Where the total number of names received by the employer exceeds the maximum number of protected workmen, admissible for the establishment, u/s 33(4) of the Act, the employer shall recognise only such maximum number of workmen as “protected”.
Where there are more than one registered trade unions in the establishment, the maximum number of protected workmen shall be distributed among the unions in such a way that each union shall have representation as protected workmen in proportion to the membership of the unions. If the number of protected workmen allotted to a union is less than that proposed by the union, the union will have to select from the proposed list the names of such persons who should be recognised as protected workmen and intimate the names to the employer within five days.
Rights of Protected Workmen
Section 33 (3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provides that during the pendency of any conciliation procedure before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding before an arbitrator or a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer should not initiate any action against any protected workman concerned in such dispute-
(a) by altering, to the prejudice of such protected workman, the conditions of service applicable to him immediately before the commencement of such proceedings; or
(b) by discharging or punishing, whether by dismissal or otherwise, such protected workman, save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending.
Remedy for employer
If an employer wants to take action against a protected workman during the pendency of a conciliation proceeding, before the Conciliation Officer, Board, Arbitrators, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, he should get express permission from the conciliation Officer, Labour Court or Tribunal, as the case may be, by applying in form J. It may be remembered that application for approval should be made before the action for change in service conditions or discharge or dismissal, as the case may be, becomes effective [McKenzie & Co Vs Workmen(AIR 1959 SC 389)] At the same time, during the pendency of application for dismissal of a worker u/s 33, the employer can place him under suspension.
Conclusion
Right to get service conditions to be unchanged during pendency of dispute is available not only to protected workmen but to every workman on whose behalf the dispute has been raised and includes those who would be benefited by the award [New India Motors Vs. Morris (AIR 1960 SC 875)]. Therefore, the matter in respect of which the change in service conditions took place should have been connected with the dispute and that the workman affected by such change in service condition should have been concerned with the dispute pending [Premier Tyres Ltd Vs Bhaskaran Nair (1979 Lab.I.C.549.Ker)] Section 33 gives a workman in pending dispute a protection against victimization. As observed in Sharma Vs SBI (AIR 1968 SC 985), it ensures a fair and satisfactory enquiry of an industrial dispute undisturbed by any action on the part of the employer which could create fresh cause for disharmony between him and his employees.
The termination of employment of a probationer at the end of the period of probation will not constitute any change in service conditions of employment and is not within the purview of section 33 [Stanley Mendez Vs Geovanol Binny Ltd (1968 KLT 623)]
MADHU.T.K
