DHL WORLDWIDE EXPRESS Vs. AFL DHL EMPLOYEES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order has been passed by the Conciliation Officer on 18th August, 2008 holding that the President, Vice-President and three members of the executive committee of the first respondent union whose names were communicated to the petitioner are protected workmen under section 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the year 2007-08.

(2.) The first respondent, it is undisputed in these proceedings, is a trade union registered under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and is the only union functioning in respect of the establishments of the petitioner. On 19th June, 2007 the first respondent communicated to the petitioner the names of its office bearers in respect of whom, a status as protected workmen was being asserted. From the record before the Court it appears that the Conciliation Officer had held, in respect of the period between 2003 and 2007, that the office bearers of the first respondent whose names were communicated by the union to the petitioner had the status of protected workmen for the purposes of section 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On a communication addressed on 19th June, 2007 by the first respondent, the petitioner raised its objections contending that (i) The union was not a recognized union; (ii) The five workmen were under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings; and (iii) No information was provided as to whether the union continued to be a registered union and whether the office bearers were "really office bearers as claimed". Reliance appears to have been placed on a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Voltas Limited Vs. Voltas Employees' Union, 2007 L.L.R. 270, in which it has been held that if an employer doubts whether an office bearer has not been appointed in accordance with the rules, he has a right to ask the trade union to provide him the details of the appointment of the office bearers and the manner in which they had been elected. The order of the Conciliation Officer records that the union produced all documents and furnished them to the management in respect of the holding of the meeting of the General body and of the conduct of the election in pursuance of which the five workmen were elected as office bearers for the period 2007-08.

(3.) The Conciliation Officer held that no dispute is pending either before the Registrar of trade unions or before a Court of law regarding the election of office bearers of the union. The first respondent is the only union functioning in respect of the petitioner. The first respondent had demanded recognition of the status of protected workmen only for five of the office bearers which is the minimum provided under section 33(4). The Conciliation Officer emphasized that the object underlying the concept of protected workmen' for the purposes of section 33(3) is to prevent victimization of office bearers of a union. The Conciliation Officer held that the five workmen whose names were communicated on 19th June, 2007 were protected workmen under section 33(4) for the year 2007-08.