Conferring 'Protected Workman' Status On Delinquent Workman Facing Disciplinary Action May Encourage Others To Indulge In Such Activities: Karnataka HC
Live LawThe Karnataka High Court has held that if it is proved in the disciplinary proceedings that a workman is guilty of the allegations or if a charge sheet is filed in a criminal case by the police in that event, the said workman cannot be accorded the status of “protected workman”. A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha set aside the order passed by the Labour Commissioner on an application moved by Armstrong Design And Acmite India Manufacturing Workers Union, recognizing all five workmen including one Umesha K P, against whom departmental enquiry was initiated and later dismissed as a “protected workmen” for the year 2023-24. Further, it was submitted that the Union seeking special status as “protected workmen” of his office bearers is duty bound to furnish the details sought by the employer. The bench noted that Rule 62 of the Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 similar to Rule 61 of the Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 specifies that every registered trade union shall communicate to the employer before the 30th of 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 as “protected workmen”, any change in the incumbency of any such officer shall be communicated to the employer by the union within 15 days of such change. It added “Though the pendency of any disciplinary proceedings may not be considered sufficient to deny the status of “protected workmen”, if it is proved in the disciplinary proceedings that a person is guilty of the allegations, or if a charge sheet is filed in a criminal case, after due investigation by the police, then in that event, it can be held that the said workman cannot be accorded the status of “protected workman.” Referring to the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Wonderla Holidays Limited, Bengaluru Vs. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bengaluru, the court said “If the delinquent workman facing disciplinary proceedings is bestowed with the status of “protected workman”, it will do nothing but encourage the other workmen to indulge in such activities and get them protected under the shield of “protected workman.” Thus it allowed the petition in part observing, “The reasoning accorded by the Assistant Labour Commissioner that the workman is neither facing charges of serious offences nor has been convicted by the trial Court is not justifiable and the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Labour Court by following settled principles of law regarding the entitlement of a workman to be declared as a “protected workman.” Appearance: Advocate Prashanth B K for Petitioner.
History of this topic
Person At Managerial Or Supervisory Role Is Not 'Workman' Under ID Act, Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Relief Granted By Labour Court
Live Law
Industrial Disputes Act | Project Leader Can't Be Implied To Be Doing Clerical, Manual Or Technical Work: Karnataka HC Sets Aside Labour Court Order
Live LawDiscover Related
![[Employee's Compensation Act] Bar On Commissioner's Power To Conduct Enquiry Imposed By 2010 Amendment Act Is Prospective: Karnataka HC](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/07/16/426142-karnatka-hc-06.jpg)
![[Senior Citizens Act] Lawyers Can Represent Parties Before Maintenance Tribunal, Section 17 No Bar: Delhi High Court](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2021/04/22/392234-senior-citizen.jpg)