The mere communication of names and addresses of office bearers of the union to the employer in compliance with Rule 71(1) of the West Bengal Industrial Rules, 1958 is sufficient to declare a workman as a 'protected workman'.

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. : This appeal is directed against a judgment and/or order dated 25th April, 2003 in a writ petition being W.P. No. 1372 of 1999. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant, the employer herein, challenging the validity and/or legality of the order passed by the learned Tribunal in respect of the workman who was considered by the learned Tribunal as 'Protected workman'.

2. The learned Tribunal held that the employer is guilty of doing unfair labour practice within the meaning of the 5th Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act for which the employer can be penalized under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.

3. The Hon'ble Single Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there is no infirmity and/or irregularity in respect of the order passed by the learned Tribunal and the Court did not interfere with the said order and dismissed the writ petition.

4. The facts of the case briefly are as follows.

5. The Government of West Bengal, Labour Department, referred one industrial dispute for adjudication by the First Industrial Tribunal vide Order No. 1648 - IR dated 15th December, 1998 under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said reference is still pending for adjudication. During pendency of the said reference, the respondent No.2, Sri Arani Mukhopadhyay along with one fellow employer, Sri Santosh Kumar Das, were dismissed by the Statesman Limited. Sri Arani Mukhopadhyay is the Vice-President of the Statesman Clerical Staff Union whereas Sri Santosh Kumar Das is the President of the said Union.

6. The employer company filed an application under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Tribunal for approval of the said dismissal order. The said application was dismissed by the learned Judge, First Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal.

7. At that point of time, the learned Tribunal held that the writ petitioner No.2 is a protected workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and rules framed thereunder. Therefore, it is held by the Tribunal that prior approval was required to be obtained under section 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act in case of a protected workman before issuance of an order of dismissal. The Tribunal held that without obtaining such prior approval there is no question of issuing order of dismissal against the respondent No.2. Hence, the application under section 33(2)(b) of the said Act was dismissed by the Tribunal. The appellant, being aggrieved filed a writ petition challenging the said order on the ground that the respondent cannot get any benefit as 'Protected Workman'. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge.

8. Being aggrieved this appeal has been filed.

9. Mr. Abhijeet Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the said respondent No. 2 is not a 'protected workman' within the meaning of the said Act and as such it is not necessary to take any prior approval in terms of section 33(3)(b) of the said Act. He further stated that there is no violation of any provision by the appellant company. According to him, mere communication of the names and addresses of the office bearers of the union to the employer in compliance with Rule 71(1) of the West Bengal Industrial Rules, 1958 is not sufficient to declare him as a 'protected workman'. It is necessary that some positive action also to be taken by the employer in respect of granting him a recognition as a 'protected workman'.

10. He further submitted that if the employer remains silent in granting such recognition to the list of workmen submitted by the union under Rule 71(1) as 'protected workmen' within the requisite time period even then, it cannot be said that those workmen would automatically become protected workmen.

11. He also contended that workmen concerned have specific remedy under the statue in the aforesaid circumstances under Rule 71(5) of the said rules, but such r