The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of appointing office bearers in accordance with the rules of the trade union and the employer's right to seek information about the manner of appointment of the office bearers before declaring them as protected workmen.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

( 1 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 28. 10. 2001 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( in short 'the ALC) conferring status of protected workmen on S/shri. S. K. Sharma, rajender Prasad Tiwari, T. C. Jhangia and Jasbir Singh, all employees of the respondent for the year 2000-01 up to 11. 7. 2001, when the services of the aforementioned four persons were terminated by the management consequent to disciplinary action. Mr. Trilok Singh, another workman, was declared protected workman for complete year.

( 2 ) A perusal of the impugned order would show that Voltas Employees Union, ashok Vihar, Phase-I made an application under Section 33 (4) of Industrial dispute Act (in short ' the Act') to the ALC seeking declaration as protected workmen in respect of five of its office bearers named in the above paragraph for the year 2001-02. The union stated that it had made an application to the management for the same purpose on 15. 3. 2001 but the management did not consider the application and did not declare the above five office bearers of the union as protected workmen. Management in its reply took the stand that union was asked certain information by the management, after receipt of application for declaration of five of its office bearers as protected workmen. The requisite information was not provided by the union. The management had asked for the process of election of the alleged office bearers by the union, when was the election held, what was the complete list of office bearers or the members of the union. The management also took the stand that S/shri S. K. Sharma, Rajender prasad Tiwari, T. C. Jhangia and Jasbir Singh were suspended from services on 23. 8. 99 for misconduct and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them. Consequent to disciplinary proceedings, they were terminated on 11. 7. 01 and an application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act was made before the Industrial tribunal immediately after the dismissal. The management could not declare these persons as protected workmen because the contract of service between these persons and the management stood suspended. The request of the union, therefore, could not be acceded to by the management. The management requested for dismissal of the application of the union for declaring above five persons as protected workmen. In rejoinder, the union took the stand that it was not necessary for it to send information about the conduct of election to the management and making of an application to the management, giving designations of the persons/office bearers and seeking status of protected workmen was sufficient. The list of the members of the union of their election had no concern with the subject. The union also took the stand that S/shri S. K. Sharma, rajender Prasad Tiwari, T. C. Jhangia and Jasbir Singh were suspended by the management since they were office bearers of the union, out of feeling of revenge.

( 3 ) THE learned Assistant Labour Commissioner held that the stand of the management seeking documents regarding election of the office bearers was not tenable. There was no proprietary in the contentions of the management that s/shri S. K. Sharma, Rajender Prasad Tiwari, T. C. Jhangia and Jasbir Singh were suspended and could not be given status of protected workmen. By mere suspension the employee-employer relationship does not come to an end. It is only the removal or dismissal which brings the relationship to an end and all above four persons were dismissed on 11. 7. 2001 and they were entitled to be declared as protected workmen up to 11. 7. 2001. Holding this, the tribunal allowed the application of the union.

( 4 ) THE order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the contract of employment between above four persons and the petitioner stood suspended with effect from 23. 8. 99 when the four employees were suspended on the ground of grave and seriou