conclusion by considering the Members of petitioner Union 158 granted
two protected workmen in favour of petitioner which has been objected
by learned advocate ... submitted that employer
has committed blunder in granting six representatives as protected
workmen by letter dated 22nd September 2009 before 30th
September 2009, therefore
hand is that an employer has taken decision to dismiss the protected workman for the misconduct which has been committed by the protected workman. Therefore ... competent authority before whom the dispute is pending for dismissing the protected workman. In such a situation, the question arose that once when the employer
time when
services of respondents workmen were terminated on 13.6.1989, at that
occasion respondents workmen were declared as protected workmen ... pending
before Industrial Tribunal, Baroda. According to workmen, they are
concerned workmen and also protected workmen declared by authority.
Therefore, during pendency of such dispute
respondent workman was suspended during pendency of permission application. But no subsistence allowance was paid to the workman. Thereafter, the respondent workman was dismissed from ... subsistence allowance has been paid to the respondent workman though the workman was protected workman. Therefore, this aspect has been taken into account
made
by Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat for claiming protection in favour of
protected workmen has been withdrawn by Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat
though learned advocate Mr. Mehta ... come to conclusion that
individual employee cannot claim a right of protected workmen in
absence of Union.
Therefore,
considering affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent
Rules, 1966 and recognized one employee Mr. Vinaybyai
Rameshbhai Patel as Protected Workman for period from 1st
October, 2010 to 30th September, 2011. Learned Senior ... that, only one Vinaybhai Rameshbhai Patel
has been considered as protected workman by Conciliation Officer.
For that, no reasons have been assigned why only
Tribunal and the workman is concerned in dispute and the dispute is connected with the misconduct or workman may be protected workman, then, for issuing ... Constitution of India which is protected fundamental right. If the Court will not protect the livelihood of the workman for which he legally is entitled
notice is served upon the other side, the concerned workmen may be protected considering interim relief which was granted by this court ... larger interest of justice so that the services of the concerned workmen are protected and not terminated only on the ground that their special civil
contract being for a limited period, the entire grievance of the workmen protected through the Union would be rendered infructuous and redundant. Taking these special ... become useless, meaningless and infructuous. The services of the workmen, if not protected by this Court, will be terminated and they will
facts of the present case are that the respondent no. 2 workman was employed as driver of the petitioner Corporation. A regular departmental inquiry ... respondent NO. 2 but the respondent NO. 2 was a protected workman and, therefore, the corporation was required to obtain permission from the Conciliation Officer
