Suspended Office-Bearers Not Protected Workmen

Case Details: Aggarwal Hotels (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Labour Commissioner [2025] 181 taxmann.com 247 (HC - Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Ms. Chandrasekharan Sudha, J.
Anil K. Hajelay, Adv. for the Petitioner.
Vinay Singh & Ms. Sangita Singh, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner was involved in the hospitality business and had two hotels and a restaurant. Respondent No. 2, claiming to be a registered trade union, submitted an application before the petitioner seeking a declaration of seven of its office bearers as ‘protected workmen’.

The petitioner sent a reply to respondent No. 2, inter alia, stating that the total strength of the petitioner was around 80 only and the maximum number of workmen who could be granted protection could not exceed five.

It was also informed that five of the persons mentioned in their application were suspended for acts of misconduct, and that disciplinary proceedings were pending and in progress. However, respondent No. 2 filed an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner seeking a declaration that the same seven office bearers be declared protected workmen.

High Court Held

The Assistant Labour Commissioner declared all seven workmen mentioned in the application by respondent No. 2 as protected workmen. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the said order.
The High Court held that since disciplinary proceedings were pending against five of the seven workmen proposed for recognition as protected workmen, the petitioner was well within its right to decline recognition to such workmen.

Further, the High Court held that the Assistant Labour Commissioner erred in holding that merely because an employer-employee relationship existed, management was bound to grant protected status to workmen named in the application. Therefore, the impugned order was to be set aside