- (1.)The short question in this petition is as to the meaning of the expression "workmen concerned" in clause (a) of Section 33 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter called the Act).
(2.)The petitioner worked as a conductor under the State Transport Department in the Koraput Zone. By order dated January 18, 1968 the District Transport Manager, Koraput, Jeypore discharged him from service with immediate effect. The petitioner lodged a complaint under Section 33-A of the Act contending that the discharge was in contravention of the provisions of Section 33 (1) (a) of of the Act as he had been discharged while the case of another conductor N. N. Patnaik was pending before the Industrial Tribunal. The plea was not accepted by the Labour Court vide award dated September 13, 1971. It is this award which is being challenged in this petition.
(3.)Clause (a) of Section 33 (1) of the Act reads as under :
"33. Conditions etc. of service, to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings,

(1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before an arbitrator or a Conciliation Officer or a Board or of any proceeding before Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall

(a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceeding;

The clause forbids the employer to alter to the prejudice of the workman the conditions of his service only if the workman is the workman "concerned in such dispute". It does not debar the employer from altering the conditions of service or taking any such step in regard to any other workman. The word "concerned" according to the Webster's Universal Unabridged Dictionary means "interested; engaged; having a connection with;". According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary it means "interested, involved;". In order to substantiate the claim of contravention under Section 33 (1) (a) the workman therefore has to show that he was concerned with the pending dispute in any of the manners envisaged by the expression. The burden of proving 'this will naturally be on the workman. In the complaint filed by the petitioner in this case all that he alleged was that industrial disputes in regard to the termination of services and its validity were pending between the management of the employer and their workmen represented through All Orissa Transport Employees' Union and as he was also a member of the said Union he could not be discharged. Nature of the dispute pending was not indicated in the complaint nor proved before the Labour Court at any subsequent stage. The Court, in our view, in these circumstances, had no material to hold that the petitioner was a workman concerned in the pending dispute.