Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. On the issue whether the workman was a protected workman, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that a mere letter by a union seeking for recognition of a particular person as a protected workman will not avail such a status to the workman. In this case, it was an admitted fact that the Punjab Ex- servicemen Corporation Employees Union had petitioned to the management on 18.09.1987 providing a list of protected workmen that included the respondent herein also as one amongst them and describing his position as the General Secretary. The letter dated 18.09.1987 (Annexure R-6) to the written statement was a communication in response to a letter submitted by the management to the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 04.07.1987 to provide to them a list and seeking by a request to the management to convey in writing that the union be recognized by the management. Learned counsel for the respondent also put on record a copy of the communication from the Assistant Labour Commissioner to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation that an application had been made to declare certain named persons as protected workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act. The letter dated 22.04.1998 records the fact that two of the officials, namely P.P. Singh-G.M. Auto Workshop and Sh. Avtar Singh-Administrative Officer-PESCO Head Office had merely asked for a list of office bearers of the union who they wanted to be declared as protected workmen and that list had also been submitted on 18.09.1987. There having been no communication from the management rejecting the request, the Assistant Labour Commissioner had stated that it was to be presumed that the workman P.S. Sohal, among others was to be taken as declared as protected workmen by the management. The Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer has himself given a decision on 23.07.1999 which has recited the fact that the trade union bearing registration No.63 dated 04.10.1995 had been sending regular annual list to the Registrar of Trade Unions, Punjab and the list of workmen prepared and communicated by the union to its employer contains the names of the office bearers employed with the industrial establishment. As per the Punjab Rules, the last date for making the application is 30th September of the year and not the 30th April and the attempt of the employer not to accord the status was only to frustrate the efforts of the union with regard to the declaration of protected workmen of the union. It consequently directed that the employer was required to recognize the protected workmen as per the opinion of the union communicated by them under Section 61(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Punjab) Rules, 1958. It has been held in P.H. Kalyani Vs. Air France Calcutta AIR 1963 SC 1756 that matter of determination of a person as a protected workman or not, is essentially a question of fact and the High Court shall not interfere with the finding recorded by a Labour Court. This judgment, however, does not come without its trappings, in that it states to the particular facts that a mere communication by the union to the company requiring a recognition and the failure of the management to respondent did not amount to a position that the recognition had been granted. In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there must be some positive act on the part of the employer with regard to the recognition of an employee as a protected workman before he could claim to be protected for the purpose of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had affirmed a finding of the Labour Court that the workman was not a protected workman. In this case, the Labour Court has held that he was a workman and the Labour Court has also found that it was not merely a case of the management failing to respond; The management had sought for a list from the Union to a communication issued by the Labour Officer directing the management to accord recognition and ultimately the Labour Officer had also passed an order directing the management to recognize the union. In my view the workman's status as protected workman cannot be, in any way, be justifiably denied.