Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Offence by companies, etc.—Where a person committing an offence under this Act is a company, or other body corporate, or an association of persons (whether incorporated or not), every director, manager, secretary, agent or other officer or person concerned with the management thereof shall, unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or consent, be deemed to be guilty of such offence. Case Law Applicability This section talks of offences by companies under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Rabindra Chamria v. The Registrar of Companies (W.B.), (1992) 64 FLR 939 (SC). [33.Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings.— (1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding before 1[an arbitrator or] a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall,— (a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceeding; or (b) for any misconduct connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, any workman concerned in such dispute, save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending. (2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance with standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute 2[or, where there are no such 1 Ins. by Act 36 of 1964, Section 18 (w.e.f. 19.12.1964). 2 Ins. by Act 36 of 1964, Section 18 (w.e.f. 19.12.1964). The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 standing orders, in accordance with the terms of the contract, whether express or implied, between him and the workman]— (a) alter, in regard to any matter not connected with the dispute, the conditions of service applicable to that workman immediately before the commencement of such proceeding; or (b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, that workman: Provided that no such workman shall be discharged or dismissed, unless he has been paid wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer. (3) 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 proceeding; 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 1[a member of the executive or other office bearer] of a registered trade union connected with the establishment, is recognised as such in accordance with rules made in this behalf. (4) In every establishment, the number of workmen to be recognised as protected workmen for the purposes of sub-section (3) shall be one per cent, of the total number of workmen employed therein subject to a minimum number of’ five protected workmen and a maximum number of one hundred 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 1 Subs. by Act 45 of 1971, Section 5, for “an officer” (w.e.f. 15.12.1971). The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with the establishment and the manner in which the workmen may be chosen and recognised as protected workmen. (5) Where an employer makes an application to a conciliation officer, Board 1[an arbitrator], a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal under the proviso to sub-section (2) for approval of the action taken by him, the authority concerned shall, without delay, hear such application and pass, 2 [within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such application], such order in relation thereto as it deems fit:] 3[Provided that where any such authority considers it necessary or expedient so to do, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as it may think fit: Provided further that no proceedings before any such authority shall lapse merely on the ground that any period specified in this sub-section had expired without such proceedings being completed.] Case Law Applicability The right to receive reduced salary (subsistence allowance) for the period of suspension has to be read along with the right of the management to place the employee under suspension pending disposal of the application under section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, the right to the employee to receive subsistence allowance are intertwined and both must survive together; Ranjit Singh v. P.O., Industrial Tribunal, 2003 LLR 396. The date of employment is not the determinate element of the dispute. Even if the workman has been engaged subsequent to the raising of the pending industrial dispute, but its verdict would affect the conditions of service applicable at that time, such a workman would be entitled to the protection of sub-section (2) of section 33 of the Act; Rodhee v. Government of Delhi, (2003) II LLJ 5 (Del). If the lay-off could be held to be in accordance with the terms of the contract of service, no compensation at all could be allowed under section 33C(2) of the Act. But if company had no power to lay-off any workmen, there is no escape from the position that the entire sum payable to the laid-off workmen, except the 1 Ins. by Act 36 of 1964, Section 18 (w.e.f. 19.12.1964). 2 Subs. by Act 46 of 1982, Section 17, for certain words (w.e.f. 21.8.1984). 3 Ins. by Act 46 of 1982, Section 17 {w.e.f. 21.8.1984). The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 workmen who have settled or compromised, has got to be computed and quantified under section 33C(2) of the Act of the period of lay-off; Workmen of Fire-stone Tyre & Rubber Co. v. Firestone Tyre ft Rubber Co., AIR 1976 SC