2024

During the pendency of any proceeding before a Board of Conciliation, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, which of the following actions cannot be taken by an employer under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

• 1. Altering in regard to any matter not connected with the dispute, the service conditions applicable to a workman immediately before commencement of such proceedings
• 2. Discharging or punishing a workman for a misconduct that is not connected with the pending dispute
• 3. Discharging or punishing a protected workman after instituting a Disciplinary Committee against him

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

[amp_mcq option1=”2 only” option2=”3 only” option3=”1 and 2″ option4=”1 and 3″ correct=”option2″]

The correct answer is B, meaning only statement 3 describes an action that cannot be taken by an employer during the pendency of proceedings without following a specific procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 imposes restrictions on an employer’s ability to alter service conditions or discharge/punish workmen during the pendency of conciliation, arbitration, or adjudication proceedings.
– Section 33(1): Requires express permission from the authority for actions concerning any matter connected with the dispute, including alteration of service conditions or discharge/punishment.
– Section 33(2): Allows alterations in service conditions regarding any matter *not* connected with the dispute, or discharge/punishment for misconduct *not* connected with the dispute. However, these actions are subject to conditions: the workman must be paid one month’s wages, and an application for approval of the action must be made simultaneously to the authority. This implies such actions *can* be taken without *prior* permission, but require subsequent approval.
– Section 33(3): Provides special protection for ‘protected workmen’ (trade union office bearers). Any action against them, including discharge or punishment, whether or not connected with the dispute, requires *express prior permission* from the authority.

Statement 1 describes altering service conditions not connected with the dispute. This is permissible under Section 33(2), subject to conditions, meaning it *can* be taken.
Statement 2 describes discharging or punishing a workman for misconduct not connected with the dispute. This is permissible under Section 33(2), subject to conditions, meaning it *can* be taken.
Statement 3 describes discharging or punishing a ‘protected workman’. Under Section 33(3), this action *cannot* be taken without express prior permission from the authority. This is a more stringent restriction than under 33(2). Therefore, among the given options, this action is the one that “cannot be taken” unilaterally or without the required prior approval process.

The purpose of Section 33 is to maintain the status quo during proceedings to prevent victimisation of workmen and ensure smooth settlement of industrial disputes. The provisions of Section 33(2) are often referred to as involving ‘controlled’ alterations or actions, while Section 33(3) for protected workmen requires strict ‘prior permission’.