Section 33 protection and Section 33A relief depend on a real nexus between the pending dispute and the employer action.

Section 33 and the summary remedy under Section 33A were construed broadly to protect industrial peace during the pendency of disputes. Workmen who joined after the dispute arose were not automatically excluded if the employer's action affected them in relation to the pending proceedings. The proviso to Section 33(2) was held to apply to both clauses, making prior approval mandatory before altering service conditions covered by that sub-section. A complaint under Section 33A still required a real nexus between the pending industrial dispute and the impugned termination or alteration, and mere union membership or pendency of a dispute was insufficient without pleading and proof of that connection.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether workmen who joined employment after the industrial dispute had arisen could still invoke the protection of Section 33 and maintain complaints under Section 33A; (ii) Whether the proviso to Section 33(2) applied to both clauses of Section 33(2) and made prior approval mandatory for alterations of service conditions unconnected with the dispute; (iii) Whether the complaints were maintainable in the absence of pleading or proof of any nexus between the pending disputes and the alleged termination.

Issue (i): Whether workmen who joined employment after the industrial dispute had arisen could still invoke the protection of Section 33 and maintain complaints under Section 33A.

Analysis: The protection under Section 33 is tied to the pendency of the industrial dispute and to the effect of the employer's action on the workforce during that period, not merely to the date on which a workman entered service. The expression "workman concerned in such dispute" was construed broadly in light of collective bargaining and the object of maintaining industrial peace, so that later entrants are not excluded if the dispute affects their existing conditions of service. The Court also treated the availability of Section 33A as dependent on the statutory scheme and the need to prevent victimisation during the pendency of proceedings.

Conclusion: Yes. Subsequent employment by itself did not exclude the workmen from the protection of Section 33 or from the remedy under Section 33A.

Issue (ii): Whether the proviso to Section 33(2) applied to both clauses of Section 33(2) and made prior approval mandatory for alterations of service conditions unconnected with the dispute.

Analysis: Reading the structure, punctuation, and object of Section 33, the Court held that the proviso governs both clauses of Section 33(2). The provision was interpreted purposively to preserve industrial harmony and to prevent unilateral action by management during pending proceedings. The Court further held that approval under Section 33(2) is mandatory and that an employer cannot lawfully alter service conditions covered by the sub-section without first obtaining such approval.

Conclusion: Yes. The proviso applied to both clauses of Section 33(2), and compliance with the approval requirement was mandatory.

Issue (iii): Whether the complaints were maintainable in the absence of pleading or proof of any nexus between the pending disputes and the alleged termination.

Analysis: The Court emphasized that a complaint under Section 33A must show a connection between the pending industrial dispute and the impugned employer action. Mere membership of a union or the pendency of some dispute was not enough. Since the petitioners had not pleaded or established any causal link, or any material showing that the termination or alteration of service conditions was connected with the pending disputes, they failed to discharge the necessary burden. The Tribunal's contrary view was set aside, though the Court also noted that the question of mandatory approval had not been raised in the complaint or argued fully before it.

Conclusion: No. The complaints were not maintainable on the facts as pleaded and proved because the required nexus was not established.

Final Conclusion: The statutory protections under Section 33 and the summary remedy under Section 33A were construed broadly, but the petitioners failed on the essential factual requirement of connecting the employer action with the pending disputes, and the writ petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: For Section 33A relief, a workman must establish a real nexus between the pending industrial dispute and the impugned employer action, and the approval requirement under Section 33(2) operates as a mandatory safeguard against unilateral alteration of service conditions during the pendency of proceedings.

---