The scope and ambit of section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is limited to actions between the parties to the dispute. A workman who claims contravention of section 33 must establish that there has been an alteration of the conditions of service applicable to him and that the said alteration has caused him prejudice. He must also establish that he is a workman concerned in the dispute which is pending.

( 1 ) THE learned Judge of the 8th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal was in the seisen of an industrial dispute referred by the appropriate authority of the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal vide letter dated 19th April, 1999. The issues under such order of reference are as follows:" (1) Whether denial of permanency to Shri Ashok Kumar Prosad by the Management is justified? (2) To what relief, if any, is he entitled?"

( 2 ) THE Tribunal ultimately held by its award dated 22nd March, 2001 on the basis of the Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported in 2001 (1) LLJ 280 (Management of Panchamalai Estate v. D. Gnanasekharan) that law nowhere states that if the person has worked for more than 240 days in a year he is entitled to be regularised in service. Provision contained in Chapter V of the Industrial Disputes Act had been enacted merely to protect the right of the workmen from being illegally dismissed from the service. Section 25 of the said Act does not contemplate creation of any right of absorption in favour of any person. Considering the legal aspect the Tribunal held that it has no authority to direct the company for making the concerned staff to be permanent. Therefore, denial of permanency to the incumbent by the management is justified and accordingly he is not entitled to any relief whatsoever from the management.

( 3 ) BEFORE hearing was concluded a workman/respondent herein made an application before the Tribunal under section 33a of the Act taking the plea that such workman was dismissed by the management when the industrial dispute in which the aforesaid award was passed in respect of the some other workmen was pending. The management did not take any permission of the Tribunal under section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal held that as because the present workman is attached to the Union which has referred the matter of dispute with regard to the workman in which the Tribunal held against him, this workman has nexus and connection with the disputes raised by the Union on behalf of that workman. Therefore, the company contravenes the provision of section 33 of the Act and the workman has right to file the application under the Act. The workman has been able to prove that he has prima facie case to go for trial.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to me, the subject matter of the dispute has a great importance for consideration. Social piece of legislation cannot be construed outside the scope and ambit of the Constitutional right. Concept of social justice is deriving from the Constitution of India itself, specially towards equal right and equal protection of each and every citizen. Nowadays I come across submissions on numerous occasions that the employees are beneficiaries of social piece of legislation because they are in unequal bargaining position. But understanding of unequal bargaining position is not yet clear benefit will be given as and when one is entitled to get relief in accordance with law. When one is unable to get relief in accordance with law yet relief is to be granted as they are in unequal bargaining position, is not the law. Submission to get the benefit of the social piece of legislation to the workmen at large cannot give any room to the judiciary to ignore the law. Therefore, whether the respondent/workman has any right to make an application under section 33a of the Act to the Tribunal or there is any failure on the part of the management to obtain a permission under section 33 (2) (b) of the Act that can be ascertained by the writ Court at any stage as and when one of the parties felt that he suffered prejudice by prima facie view or final view. It is to be remembered that the justiciability is outcome of prima facie view. Whenever a Tribunal considered the justiciability even on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties and held that the workman was able to prove that he has prima facie case to go for trial, then the wri