Industrial Disputes Act 1947 Case Study

3422 Words14 Pages
While going through the March 2011 issue of Labour Law Notes today (06/04/2011 at 10.00 AM) a case-law pertaining to Section 33 (3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 came to my notice. The esteemed readers are aware that Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 deals with “conditions of service, etc. to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings”. Sub-section (3) of Section 33 deals with “protected workman”. Since case-laws under Section 33 are rare viz. pertaining to “protected workmen” I thought it appropriate to pen an article. Moreover the judgment has been delivered by a learned Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Writ Appeal No. 1171 of 2010. Before writing the article, I think…show more content…
This rule has got 4 sub-rules which read as follows: (1) Every registered trade union connected with an industrial establishment, to which the Act applies, shall communicate to the employer before the 30th April every year, the names and addresses of such of the officers of the union who are employed in that establishment and who, in the opinion of the union should be recognized “protected workmen”. Any change in the incumbency of any such officer shall be communicated to the employer by the union within fifteen days of such change. (2) The employer shall, subject to Section 33, sub-section (4), recognize such workmen to be “protected workmen” for the purpose of sub-section (3) of the said section and communicate to the union, in writing, within fifteen days of the receipt of the names and addresses under sub-rule (1), the list of workmen recognized as protected workmen for the period of twelve months from the date of such communication. (3) Where the total member of names received by the employer under sub-rule (1) exceeds the maximum number of protected workmen, admissible for the establishment, under Section 33, sub-section (4), the employer shall recognize as protected workmen only such maximum number of…show more content…
vrs. Hindustan Latex Labour Union (AITUC) [2011 (1) LLN 782 (DB-Kerala): 2011 (128) FLR 471] FACTS OF THE CASE One, workman, named Shri Ajay K Prakash of HLL Lifecare Ltd was proceeded against disciplinary proceedings three times and was issued with charge-sheets [Exts. P1, P2 and P3]. In the enquiry, conducted pursuant to Ext. P1-charge sheet, he was found guilty. However, during the pendency of Exts. P2 and P3 charges levelled again him, the union nominated the delinquent employee’s name under Rule 61 (1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 for recognizing him as a protected workman. Now the question before us is : (i) Whether a workers’ Union has got an absolute right to nominate any person/employee to be recognized as a protected workman irrespective of his credential? (ii) Whether the Management is bound to accept the nomination of a charge-sheeted employee and recognize him/her as protected workman? (iii) Whether the Management has got a right to reject the nomination of a charge sheeted employee/workman to be recognized as a protected workman? WHAT THE MANAGEMENT

More about Industrial Disputes Act 1947 Case Study

Open Document