Union must provide details of office bearers whom they want to get declared protected workmen: Karnataka HC
The Court observed that Umesha K.P. was declared guilty in the filed inquiry report based on the evidence. Later, without waiting for the required 15-day response period, the Union inserted Umesha K.P.'s name as a "protected workman" in a letter, presumably in an effort to protect him.
The Karnataka High Court noted that granting the status of “protected workman” to the worker facing disciplinary action would only serve to incentivize other workers to partake in comparable activities and apply for protection under the same status.
A petition against an order from the First Respondent (Assistant Labour Commissioner) on the classification of some workers as “protected workmen” under Section 33 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act) was partially granted by the court. Regarding M/S. Armstrong Design and Acmite v. The Assistant Labour Commissioner. This was made by the respondent(s), government politician Rashmi Patel, and petitioner(s), advocate T.S. Anantharam.
The Assistant Labour Commissioner’s logic was deemed incorrect by the Court, as it is insufficient to have no significant charges or convictions.
“If the delinquent worker facing disciplinary proceedings is granted the status of “protected workman,” it will only serve to incite other workers to engage in similar behavior and secure their own protection under the banner of “protected workman,” as noted by the Bench of Justice K. S. Hemalekha.
Government Pleader Rashmi Patel represented the Respondent, and Attorney Prashanth B. K. represented the Petitioner. M/s. Arm Strong Design and Acmite India Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. contested a decision pertaining to the status of “protected workmen” under Section 33 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act), issued by the First Respondent (Assistant Labour Commissioner). In the middle of continuing disciplinary procedures against Umesha K.P., the Union (Second Respondent) requested this status for five workers, including him. All five, including Umesha K.P., were granted protected status by the Assistant Labour Commissioner while the petitioner awaited a response. Umesha K.P. was fired by the petitioner as a result, and an application for permission under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act is still pending.
The Court observed that every registered trade union is required to notify the employer by April 30 of each year of the names and addresses of the establishment’s officers who the union believes should be recognized as “protected workmen.” This requirement is similar to that of Rule 61 (1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (Central Rules). The employer must be notified of any changes to these officers within a period of fifteen days. Before the petitioner could reply to their letter, the union in this case requested a ruling from the Assistant Labour Commissioner over the status of “protected workmen.”
According to the Bench, “only those trade unions that are registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, in accordance with Rule 62 (2) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka) Rules, 1957, can get their workers declared “covered workers” under Section 33 (4).” The Trade Unions Act’s Section 6 lists the requirements for registration, including how the trade union’s executives must be constituted in accordance with the Act and its regulations. This section requires registered trade unions to create policies that address a number of topics, including the selection of the executive body.
The Court noted that a union is required by law to give the employer the information it requests while requesting the unique status of “protected workmen” for its office bearers. According to Section 6 of the Trade Unions Act, employers may only receive communications from office bearers who have been appointed or elected in compliance with the union’s regulations. If the employer has any concerns about the validity of the appointment of the office bearers, they can ask the union for further information.
This status is given in order to guarantee the trade union’s efficient operation and shield office holders from mistreatment by their employers. “The employer has every right to ensure that the status of the “protected workmen” sought by the union is that of genuine persons and that the shield of “protected workmen” sought is not to be misused,” the Bench noted. “The “protected workmen” are provided safeguards against any action of management, and the said safeguard is not available to the other workmen.”
The Court observed that Umesha K.P. was declared guilty in the filed inquiry report based on the evidence. Later, without waiting for the required 15-day response period, the Union inserted Umesha K.P.’s name as a “protected workman” in a letter, presumably in an effort to protect him. “Protected workman” status may not always be excluded from disciplinary processes, but it may be revoked if an individual is found guilty in such proceedings or is charged with a crime following a police inquiry.
The Bench underlined that being classified as a “protected worker” is not a given. Employers are free to choose whether to offer a worker this status or not. The employer may decide not to provide the employee with the unique status of “protected workmen,” even in cases of minor infractions.
The investigation officer ruled Umesha K.P. guilty, and a second show-cause notice was issued, the bench further remarked. But instead of including Ravi Kumar, the Union added Umesha K.P. to the list and petitioned the Labour Court to have them recognized as “protected workmen.” This was done without waiting for a response from management. Giving “protected workman” status to an employee who is being disciplined creates a risky precedent and might lead other employees to commit similar offenses in order to qualify for this status.
The Assistant Labour Commissioner’s argument that the worker is not facing serious charges or has been found guilty was deemed unjustified by the court. The Labour Court should evaluate the case in light of the aforementioned circumstances and recognized legal standards pertaining to a worker’s right to be designated a “protected workman.”
As a result, the Court set aside the contested order, partially granted the petition, and sent the case to the Assistant Labour Commissioner for additional review.
Value our content… contribute towards our growth. Even a small contribution per month would be of great help to us. Since our establishment, we have been serving the industry through daily news and updates.
Our content is free for all, and we plan to keep it that way
Support the People Manager. Pay Here
- SBI General Insurance announces Naveen Chandra Jha as the new Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer - June 26, 2024
- Karnataka HC declines to Quash FIR against Man for writing Woman’s Mobile Number in toilet as ‘Call Girl’ - June 25, 2024
- Government extends leave benefits to surrogate mothers and adoptive parents employed by them - June 25, 2024
