Understanding 'Protected Workmen' in the Industrial Disputes Act: Why Is It So Confusing?

Dear Friends,

When we learn about the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, there are some terms and definitions that require thorough explanations. Even the courts have attempted to interpret these terms in various ways depending on the situation. As a result, an ordinary student may find it challenging to comprehend these terms. One such term, 'Protected workmen,' is particularly confusing and subject to multiple interpretations.

Please see the attached article.

Regards,
PBS KUMAR

The article on "Protected Workman" was published on another site on 14th October 2011 by Shri PC Vijayarajan, Deputy Labour Commissioner of Kerala, in response to my post on the same site on 10th October 2011. While copying and pasting articles, please do not delete the name of the original contributor, who has taken efforts to compile the case law and publish it. The only contribution of the person who posted is the title of the post, that too with the year of the ID Act changed to 1948 instead of 1947.

Regards,
KCS Kutty, Pune

In this particular case, management has declined to assign the "protected workmen" status to the General Secretary of the Trade Union, citing the continuance of disciplinary proceedings against him as the reason.

Would the management be justified in declining the request under any other circumstance?

Intention Behind "Protected Workmen"

What was the intention of the lawmakers behind introducing the concept of "protected workmen"?

Can anyone suggest to me what the reply should be in case the Union has recommended protected workmen under Section 33 of Rule 61?