https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312992 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. en-us Fri, 20 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:07:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312992 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 20 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312992