K. GOVINDARAJAN, J.

The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Employees Union has filed W.P. Nos. 7085 and 7086 of 1998 challenging the transfer orders passed by the second respondent in its proceedings dated May 4, 1998 and April 30, 1998 respectively with respect to its employees specifically mentioned in the above writ petitions on the ground that they are 'protected workmen' and transfers cannot be made. The concerned 'Protected Workmen' also have filed writ petition in W.P. Nos. 11394 and 11395 of 1998 challenging the proceedings. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, the issue is taken together for disposal. 2. According to the petitions, they are 'protected workmen' within the meaning of Section33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, and, in view of the decision taken on May 9, 1989 on various demands, the management agreed to extend the benefits for the 'protected workmen' even with respect to the transfer. On that basis the petitioners have come forward with the above writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 7085 and 7086 of 1998 etc., alleging that the transfer orders cannot be sustained. 3. The second respondent in W.P. Nos. 7085 and 7086 of 1998 has filed counter. According to the second respondent, the persons claiming as 'protected workmen' in those writ petitions are not 'protected workmen and so they cannot claim any privilege on that ground to challenge the transfer orders. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. Prakash, has submitted that the transferred workmen are 'protected workmen' for the purpose of Section33 of the Act, during the year 1997. Rule 65 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 describes the method of preparing the list of 'protected workmen' every year. Relying on this Rule, the learned counsel has also submitted that though the petitioners-union has also submitted that list as early as on September 23, 1997, since the management has not recognised the list within the time stipulated, the earlier list will continue till the new list is prepared. On the basis of the said submission and relying on the list for the academic year 1997, the learned counsel, has submitted that the petitioners employed in the union have to he treated as 'protected workmen'. The learned counsel has further submitted that the 'protected workman, can enjoy the privilege only during the tendency of any conciliation proceedings before a Conciliation Officer or a board or of any proceeding before an arbitrator or a Labour Court or a Tribunal, or National Forum, in respect of an industrial dispute with respect to the transfers, independent of the same, the 'protected workmen' are entitled to have the privilege of not transferring them as agreed to in the minutes dated May 9, 1989. With respect to the said minutes according to the learned counsel, it is only to identify the persons claiming privilege as 'protected workmen'. Otherwise the circumstance that has been specified under Section33 of the said Act to enjoy the privilege cannot be made applicable with respect to transfers. In answering to this grievance of the petitioner Union, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation has submitted that the petitioners-Union cannot sustain the writ petitions challenging the individual orders of transfer. He has further submitted that during the relevant period, there is no recognized 'protected workmen' as contemplated under Rule 65 of the said Rules, and in the absence of any such recognition the workmen who have been transferred cannot make any claim on the ground that they are 'protected workmen'. The learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that the said workmen are claiming privilege only as 'protected workmen'. That being the fact, they cannot claim a privilege beyond the scope of Section33 of the said Act. referring to the minutes, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the respondents-Corporation/management has reserved its right to trans