BANGALORE EAST INDUSTRIAL WORKERS UNION (R), REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SRI P. MUNIRAJU Vs. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONCILIATION OFFICER, BANGALORE DIVISION - III AND THE MANAGEMENT MOLEX INDIA PVT. LTD. REP. BY SRI HARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner made an application on 18.5.10 before the 1st Respondent to accord status of 'protected workmen' to four workmen of the 2nd Respondent - establishment. The application contains the particulars and the names of four workmen who were requested to be declared as 'protected workmen'. Notice of the application was given to the 2nd Respondent - Management of M/s. Molex India Pvt. Ltd. The 2nd Respondent filed its statement of objections on 17.8.10. The Petitioner filed a reply dated 14.9.10 stating that application made being lawful, the permission sought may be accorded. The 1st Respondent passed the Order dated 25.11.10 declining to accord permission to treat the four workmen suggested by the Petitioner as protected workman and the application of the Petitioner was dismissed. Aggrieved, the Union has filed this writ petition.

(2.) SRI T.S. Anantharam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that, the 1st Respondent without taking into consideration the material/relevant aspects i.e., (a) Whether the Applicant is a registered Trade Union, (b) Whether the suggested persons are the workmen in the establishment of 2nd Respondent and (c) Whether the suggested persons are office bearers of the Union., has passed the impugned Order, on account of the misdirection adopted in taking note of an amendment to the Trade Unions Act, 2001, with effect from 9.1.01, which has no application to the case on hand. Learned Counsel submits that the impugned Order which is not a considered order is arbitrary and illegal and at any event is vitiated in view of the misdirection adopted in the matter and as a result, calls for interference. Learned counsel further submitted that, the period for which permission was sought will come to an end on 30.4.11 and hence, the application of the Petitioner being lawful, which having not been considered in accordance with law by the 1st Respondent, the impugned Order may be quashed and the permission sought may be accorded.

(3.) SRI Jagadeesh Mundargi, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the 1st Respondent submitted that the application having been examined, decision was taken as per the impugned Order and the same is justified.