Aggrieved by the order dated 16.09.2017, passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, ("the learned Commissioner", for short), Bengaluru Division, whereby the learned Commissioner has declared five workmen of the appellant as "Protected Workmen", for the year 2017-18, the petitioner, M/s. Wonderla Holidays Limited, has approached this court.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1951. It is engaged in the business of running Amusement Parks offering a wide range of water and other adventure sports. In the year 2000, it opened its first amusement park at Kochi, in 2003 in Bangalore, and in 2014 in Hyderabad. According to the petitioner, the service condition of its workmen are governed by the Certified Standing Orders and the terms laid down in the appointment orders.

3. On 04.04.2017, the respondent No.2, Wonderla Karmika Sangha, submitted a letter to the petitioner-management requesting it to recognise five of the Office bearers of the Trade Union, namely Mr. Ravi Kumar H. N., Mr. Kanthraju C, Mr. Rajshekara K.B., Mr. Yathish K. P., and Mr. Thoppegowda P. D., as protected workmen under Section 33 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act", for short), for the year 2017-18. However, the petitioner did not respond to the said letter. For, the first three persons were not only facing departmental enquiry, but were also facing criminal charges against them. Since the petitioner did not reply to the said letter, on 27.04.2017, the respondent No.2 filed a petition before the learned Commissioner for declaring the aforementioned five persons as protected workmen under Section 33 (3) of the Act.

4. On 22.06.2017, the petitioner filed its objections. It clearly pointed out that Mr. Ravi Kumar H. N., Mr. Kanthraju .C, and Mr. Thoppegowda P. D., could not be declared as protected workmen as they were under suspension due to the pendency of departmental enquiry. It was also pointed out that these three persons were undergoing criminal trial with regard to FIRs lodged by the petitioner. With regard to Mr. Ravi Kumar H. N., it was specifically pleaded that he was issued with a warning letter on 20.10.2015 for indulging in acts of deliberate slow down, and wilful refusal to carry out any work assigned to him amounting to tool down strike. Again on 09.11.2015, he was issued another warning letter for desisting from such activities. On 09.12.2015, he was issued with a charge sheetcumshow cause notice in which it was alleged that he was indulging in wilful insubordination, wilful slowing down of work, leaving working spot without permission, and acting prejudicial to the interest of the Company. By order dated 16.12.2015, he was suspended from work. According to the petitioner he was facing a disciplinary enquiry at the relevant time when the application for declaring him as protected workman was filed. The petitioner also pleaded that since Mr. Ravi Kumar H. N., was distributing pamphlets wherein he had falsely claimed that the petitioner's amusement park was working with machineries which were not well maintained, thus a disaster could occur at the amusement park. It was also alleged that he was forcibly collecting money from the customers; he was chasing them away from the Amusement Park if the customer refused to pay the money. Due to the said criminal complaint, Mr. Ravi Kumar H. N., was facing a criminal trial for different offences under the Indian Penal Code. Similar statements were also made with regard to Mr. Kantharaju .C, and Mr. Thoppegowda P. D.

5. With regard to Mr. Rajshekara K. B., Mr. Yathish K. P., the petitioner claimed that they could not be declared as protected workmen for they have been transferred to the Amusement Park at Hyderabad. Thus, they were no longer working with the establishment. Therefore, considering the fact that three workmen were facing departmental enquiries and criminal trials, considering the fact that two