Protection of workmen in pending industrial appeals prevents dismissal without prior tribunal permission where collective dispute rights are involved.

Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 protects workmen concerned in a pending appeal from punitive action without prior written permission of the Appellate Tribunal. The expression "workman concerned" was construed to mean a direct and closer connection than mere interest, but not so narrowly as to exclude workers whose individual dispute has been taken up collectively as an industrial dispute. On that basis, a workman who was part of the collective dispute remained within the statutory protection, and dismissal during the pendency of the appeal without permission was invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether a workman whose dismissal occurred during the pendency of an appeal arising out of an industrial dispute between the management and its workers was a "workman concerned" in such appeal for the purpose of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, so that his dismissal without prior written permission of the Appellate Tribunal was invalid.

Analysis: Section 22 protects the workmen concerned in a pending appeal from alteration of service conditions or discharge and requires the express permission in writing of the Appellate Tribunal before punitive action can be taken. The expression "concerned" was held to denote a closer and more direct relation than mere interest, but it was not to be given an unduly narrow meaning. Where an individual dispute over dismissal is taken up collectively by the workers and referred as an industrial dispute between the management and the workers, the workers as a body become parties to the proceeding. In that setting, subsequent disciplinary action against one of those workers may affect the pending collective dispute and may also invite victimisation, which the section is intended to prevent. The reasoning was supported by the protective object of analogous provisions and by the view that the management should not be allowed to stifle pending proceedings by taking punitive action during their pendency.

Conclusion: The respondent was a workman concerned in the pending appeal, his dismissal without prior permission contravened Section 22, and the dismissal was rightly set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the impugned dismissal was hit by the statutory prohibition against penal action during the pendency of the appeal, leaving the respondent entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an industrial dispute is pursued collectively by the workers in a pending appeal, a workman who is part of that collective dispute may be a "workman concerned" for the purposes of the statutory bar on dismissal without prior written permission during the pendency of the appeal.

---