Mobile 9831233798,
9434007694
All
India
(A Coordinating Body of National Federation of RRB Officers
& National Federation of RRB Employees)
Adviser: Ajit Kumar
Ghosh
President: C. Rajeevan
Secretary General: A. Sayeed 1 Nazrul Islam Avenue VIP
ROAD
Circular No.25 Date:
- 28-04-2014
To
Units/State Federations/C.C. Members/
Office Bearers/ All others concerned
Dear
comrades,
Sub:
Benefits flowing from the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for
the Trade Unions registered under the TU Act, 1926 – Provision of Protected
Workmen
You
are aware that Trade Unions operating in Banking Industry including in RRB
sector are registered under the TU Act, 1926, which is primarily meant for the
workmen/workers in any industry/ establishment as applicable, and these TUs are
guided by various provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947/Industrial
Disputes Rules,1957.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides for
Protected Workmen and restrictions on management
in altering their service conditions or giving pumshments like dismissal, etc.
during pendency of any dispute to such protected workmen.
Section 33 (3) of
I.D. Act provides as under:
"Notwithstanding
anything contained in sub-section (2), no employer shall, during the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, take any
action against any protected workman concerned in such dispute —
(a)
by altering, to the
prejudice of such protected workman, the conditions
of service applicable to him immediately
before the commencement of such proceedings; or
(b)
by discharging or punishing, whether by dismissal
or otherwise, such protected workman, save with the express
permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending.
Explanation
- For the purposes of this
sub-section, a "protected workman", in relation to an
establishment, means a workman who, being a member of the executive or
other office bearer of a registered trade union connected with the establishment, is recognized
as such in accordance with rules made in this behalf.
Number
of Protected Workmen –Section 33 (4) of
the I.D. Act:
In every establishment, the
number of workmen to be recognised as protected workmen
for the purposes of Sub Section 3 shall be 1 O/o of
the total number of workmen employed therein subject to a minimum number of
5 protected
workmen and a maximum number of 100
protected workmen and for the aforesaid purpose, the appropriate Government may make rules
providing for the distribution of such protected workmen among various trade
unions, if any, connected with the establishment and the manner in which the
workmen may be chosen and recognised as protected workmen.
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, Rule 61 (1) provides
as under:
Every
registered trade union connected with an industrial establishment, to which the
Act applies, shall communicate to the
employer before 30th April every year, the names and addresses of such of the officers of the union who
are employed in that establishment and who,
in the opinion of the Union should be
recognized as "protected workmen."
Any change in the incumbency of any such officer shall be communicated
to the employer by the Union within 15 days
of such change.
Rule 61 (2) provides:
The employer shall, subject to Section 33 (4), recognise
such workmen to be protected workmen for the purposes of sub-section (3) of the said Section
and communicate to the union, in writing within
15 days of the receipt of the names and addresses under Sub Rule 1, the
list of workmen recognized as protected
workmen (for the period of 12 months from the date of such
communication).
We therefore request our units both workmen & officer, to
take note of the matter and do the needful to submit the names immediately. As
this may be first time submission of names of protected workmen, time limit of April may not be possible to be followed. Though a
slight late, we may submit the names as per above provisions as early as
possible to the management of respective RRBs.
We are enclosing six pages from a book on the ID Act, 1947,
with explanatory notes, 2001 edition, by Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
With greetings,
Comradely yours
A Sayeed Khan
Secretary General
Encl:-
SECTION 2(s)- WORKMAN
33. Meaning and Scope
Whether an employee is a workman or not
under the Industrial Disputes Act is most important
factor under the industrial jurisprudence. The reason being that workman enjoys
security to such an extent that howsoever unwanted, indisciplined or inefficient he may be, his
employer cannot dispense with his service unless a meticulous and complicated procedure is followed.
Even afterhis termination, the workman can challenge his termination before
the Labour court/Industrial Tribunal who are vested with the powers to give
appropriate relief in casesof dismissal or the discharge of the workman. On
the contrary, if an employee is not a workman he has no job security and no protection
whatsoever, even when his
termination is prima facie is arbitrary or unjustified. He can neither go to Labour Court Civil
Court Civil Court
The definition of 'workman', in
section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act,has been a subject-matter of most of
controversy in industrial dispute-, Hence it becomes imperative to understand as
to who is a 'workman' and who
is
‘not a workman'
as employed by the employer. It is, however, made clear that the monthly
ceiling of Rs. 1600 per month, as given in the definition, has not
only become obsolete
but deceptive also and as such cannot be taken into consideration.
Also, the designation of the workman is no longer the criterion
for determination
of the status of an employee since the nature of duties are taken
into consideration to ascertain
whether an employee is a workman or not, as held by Supreme Court
and High Courts.' In order to decide as to whether an employee, even though designated as an officer is a workman or not the primary or substantial duties as
performed by him are relevant.' It is also made
clear that if the main work of the
employee is not manual or clerical or if little manual or clerical work which he
does forms only a part of his duties, then such an employee
cannot be deemed to be a 'workman' as defined in section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act.
In one case3 pertaining to
determination as to whether an employee is a workman or not, the Industrial
Tribunal has laid down the following test:
1.
It
is the dominant purpose of the employment that is relevant and
not some additional duties which may be
performed by the employee.
2.
It is not the designation of the post held by the employee
which is relevant, but what is relevant is the nature of duties
performed by the employee.
3.
The
Court has to find out whether the employee can bind the company in the matter of some decision taken
on behalf of the company.
4.
What is the nature of the supervisory duties performed by the employee?
Do they include directing the subordinates to do their
work and/or to oversee their performance?
5.
Does the employee have power either to recommend or
sanction sanction leave of the workman working under him?
6.
Does
he have the power to take any disciplinary action against
the workmen working under him?
7.
Does
he have the power to assign duties and distribute thework?
8. Does the
employee have the authority to indent material and todistribute
the same amongst the workmen?
9.
Does the employee have power to supervise the work of men
or does he
supervise only machines and not the work of men?
10.Does the
employee have any workmen working under him and does he write their confidential report?
Bank
Branch Manager/Officer of Bank: His duties are to check
various accounts and as such performs clerical work.
1. Sunita
B. Vatsaraj
v.
Karnataka Bank Ltd., 1999 LLR 729 (Bom HCo
2. Leena Patade India
Bank Employee engaged as Secretary: Not
having independent powers as vested with the Chairman of the Bank.
Kavitsm
Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. v. Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, 2006 LLR 838 (AP HC).
Cameraman: Doing technical work
in motion picture industry. Marshal Braganza v. Labour Court, 1975
(11) LLJ 198 (Bom HC).
Canteen's
Employees: Since
an employer has a statutory obligation to. canteen in a factory employing more
than 250 workers.
Workmen of S.B.M. v.
S.B.M., 1988 (64) FJR 313.
Cashier:
Handling cash only.
Ram Naresh Singh Parihar
Casual
Employee: There
is no specific exclusion of such workers frocr definition of 'workman' as given
under the Act.
1.
Ebramalai v. Mgt. of Sunplex Concrete Piles Ltd., 1970 (21) FLR 238: 197: LLJ 454: 1970
(37) FJR 396.
2.
Radha Kishan Vunbrecle
3. G.
Yadi Reddy v. Brooke Bond India Ltd., Ghateshwar, 1994 LLR 328 (AP
ii –
4.
Narendra Deo Krishi
Evam Praudyogic
Vishwavidayalaya Mazdoor Unio- Evam P. Vishwavidayalaya FLR 701
HC).
5.
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
(represented by its Manax Director) v. Ramulu, Ex. Casual Driver, 2000
LLR 393 (AP HC
6.
Tanuku
Municipality Venkateswara Rao ,
2001 LLR 178 (AP
HC
Director M/s. Experimental Sugar
Factory, Kanpur v.
Presiding Officer, Cer--,g Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Kanpur, 2006 LLR 343 (All H.C. Chemist: Doing mainly technical job
with little supervision.
Burmashell Oil
Storage and Distributing Co. of India v. Burmashell
Mgt. A-ZF. 1971 Lab IC 699: 1971 (11) LLJ 590: 22 FLR
11: 41 FJR 361.
Chemist
Incharge: Having power only to recommend other employees leave, not to
sanction it and cannot take disciplinary action.
No comments:
Post a Comment