The Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 is a key piece of legislation in India that provides a framework for the resolution of disputes between employers and employees in the industrial context. The Act is designed to maintain industrial peace and harmony by providing mechanisms to resolve conflicts that may arise regarding employment, wages, working conditions, and other employment related issues. 

What is an Industrial Dispute?

An industrial dispute refers to a conflict or disagreement between employers and employees regarding employment conditions.

It typically arises over issues such as:

• Wages
• Working conditions
• Benefits
• Hours of work
• Job security
• Other terms and conditions of employment
   

Industrial disputes can manifest in various forms, including:

• Strikes
• Lockouts
• Work stoppages
• Collective bargaining negotiations.
   

Section 33: Conditions of Service to Remain Unchanged During Pendency of Processing

While a conciliation proceeding is happening with a Conciliation Officer or a Board of Conciliation, Arbitrator, Labour Court, or Tribunal regarding an industrial dispute:

• Employers cannot change the work conditions that existed just before the case began if it negatively affects the workers involved in the dispute.
• Employers cannot discharge or punish any workers involved unless they have written permission from the authority handling the case.
   

During this ongoing case:

• An employer can change the work conditions for a worker involved in the dispute if the changes do not relate to the dispute and are in line with the standing orders for that worker, or if there are no standing orders, according to their contract.
• For misconduct not related to the dispute, the employer can fire or discipline that worker.
• However, no worker can be fired or dismissed without receiving one month's wages and without the employer applying for approval from the authority managing the case.
   

Regardless of what is stated in the previous section:

• During an ongoing case, an employer cannot take action against a protected workman concerning the dispute.
• The employer cannot change their work conditions to their disadvantage based on the conditions that existed before the proceedings began.
• The employer cannot discharge or punish that protected workman without written permission from the authority managing the case.
   

Explanation

A "protected workman" is defined as:

• A worker who is a member or office bearer of a registered trade union connected to the establishment, recognized according to the relevant rules.
• In each workplace, the number of workers recognized as protected workmen will be 1% of the total number of workers employed, with a minimum of 5 members and a maximum of 100 members.
• The appropriate Government can make rules for how these protected workmen are distributed among different trade unions and how they are chosen and recognized.
• When an employer applies to a conciliation officer, Board, arbitrator, Labour Court, or Tribunal to approve their actions, the authority must hear the application without delay and make a decision within three months.
• If necessary, the authority can extend this period for valid reasons and the application will still be valid even if the specified time has lapsed without a decision being made.
   

Supreme Court's Judgements

• Indian Cable Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1970) - The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that any action taking place under Section 33 must be reasonable and must not be arbitrary. The employer cannot dismiss an employee without justifiable grounds even if the matter is pending resolution.
   
• Bihar Manager's Union v. State of Bihar (2000) - The Court emphasized the importance of obtaining prior approval from the appropriate authority before dismissing or altering the service conditions of an employee when industrial disputes are pending. Any action taken without such approval would be deemed illegal.
   
• Kashmir Transport Company v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir (1968) - The Court clarified that the protective measures in Section 33 exist to safeguard workers' interests during disputes. It aims to prevent employers from taking unfair advantage during the proceedings.
   
• N.R. Dange v. State of Maharashtra (1962) - The Supreme Court stated that disciplinary action against an employee during the pendency of an industrial dispute must be just and fair. Section 33 intends to maintain the status quo of employment until the dispute is resolved.
   
• S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Employees' Union v. S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Ltd. (2004) - This case reaffirmed the necessity of prior approval under Section 33. Any change in service conditions or punitive action without such approval would be void.

Conclusion
The provisions in the Industrial Disputes Act regarding the maintenance of conditions of service during the processing of industrial disputes are crucial for protecting employee rights and ensuring fair labour practices. It underscores the importance of having a stable environment for negotiations, minimizing the risk of exacerbating disputes and promoting industrial peace.

Also Read:

• Labour courts: The industrial disputes Act 1947