R. BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. CARBORANDUM UNIVERSAL LTD., OKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three petitioners workmen challenge in this petition the order of the Industrial Tribunal, dated April 30, 1978, holding that their complaint under S. 33A was not tenable because they were not proved to be protected workmen at the time when the order of dismissal was passed on the morning of November 28, 1972 and, therefore, there was no contravention of S. 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.

(2.) THE three petitioners were the office bearers, viz., president, vice -president and treasurer, respectively, of the concerned union which was the sole union at the time in this company. This trade union, viz., Carborundum Universal Union, Okha, came into existence since November, 1970. For the previous year, these three petitioners were recognised as protected workmen as per the decision of the conciliation officer, dated December 23, 1971. For the year in question, before the requisite time of 30th September, 1972, i.e., on September 25, 1972, the union communicated to the company the names of five officers of the trade union who were employed in this company's establishment and who should be recognised as protected workmen under S. 33(3) read with Rule 66. This application was received by the company on September 29, 1972, and within the prescribed period of 15 days from the receipt of that letter the company failed to give any reply or to recognise the list of the five workmen submitted by the concerned trade union. In fact, this was the same list, except for a change of one of the office -bearers, as in the previous year's list which was duly recognised. Thereafter, the union approached the conciliation officer by the letter, dated October 28, 1972, as the company had failed to declare the names of the protected workmen. Even the conciliator passed an order on November 28, 1972, that the five persons mentioned in the union's application dated September 25, 1972, were recognised as protected workmen. This order was passed on the same day on which the matter was heard on November 28, 1972. The company passed its dismissal order of these three main office -bearers in the morning on November 28, 1972 and, therefore, the three petitioners had filed the present complaint under S. 33A, as admittedly, Reference I.T. No. 44 of 1972 was pending before this Tribunal. That complaint having been dismissed on the aforesaid preliminary point, the petitioners have challenged the order of the Tribunal.

(3.) A bare perusal of Rule 66 shows that under clause (1) every trade union connected with the establishment to with this Act applies has to communicate before 30th September, every year, names and addresses of its officers employed in the establishment whom it chooses for being recognised as such protected workmen. Thereafter, if there is any change in incumbency of such officer, the employer has to be communicated this fact within 10 days of the change by the trade union. Therefore, sub -clause (1) of rule 66 gives a choice to the union to select officers who should be recognised as protected workmen and casts an obligation on the trade union that before 30th September every year the names and addresses of these officers shall be communicated to the employer. Rule 66(2) then provides a duty on the employer to recognise such workmen as protected workmen for the purpose of S. 33(3), of course, subject to the provisions of S. 33(4), and the employer is required to communicate to the union in writing the list of such recognised protected workmen within 15 days of the receipt of the names and addresses from the union under Rule 66(1).