Protected Workman Labour Code: Who Gets Protection From Dismissal?

A plant HR manager once came to me with a live problem. “Sir, we have a supervisor who wants to issue a show-cause notice to one of the union office bearers. But someone told me this person is a ‘protected workman’ and we can’t touch him without permission. Is that even true, and if so, permission from whom?” This is a question that comes up more often than people expect, usually at exactly the wrong moment — when HR is already midway through a disciplinary process and suddenly has to pause.

Protected workman labour code provisions exist precisely for this situation, and every HR and IR professional dealing with a unionised workforce needs to understand them well before a case like this lands on their desk. This article explains who actually qualifies as a protected worker under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, how many such workers a factory can have, what permission is required before taking action against one, and what can go wrong if this process is skipped. As with all provisions under the new labour codes, the specific procedure for recognising and listing protected workers should be confirmed against the applicable state rules.

Read: Strike Notice Labour Code: The 14-Day Rule HR Must Know

What “Protected Workman” Means, and Why the Term Is Changing

Under the earlier Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, this protection was built around the term “protected workman.” The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 continues largely the same protection, but the terminology has shifted along with the Code’s broader move from “workman” to “worker” — so the provision is now generally framed around the term “protected worker.” In practice, both terms refer to the same underlying concept, and HR professionals will hear “protected workman” used informally on the shop floor and in older reference material even as the current statutory language uses “protected worker.”

The core idea has not changed: certain office bearers of a registered trade union connected with an establishment are given a specific layer of protection against dismissal, discharge, or punishment while an industrial dispute involving them is pending before a conciliation officer, tribunal, or similar authority.

Who Actually Qualifies as a Protected Worker

Under Section 90 of the Code, a protected worker, in relation to an establishment, is a worker who is a member of the executive or another office-bearer of a registered trade union connected with that establishment, and who is recognised as such in accordance with the applicable rules.

A few things HR should note carefully here:

• Not every union member is automatically protected. Only those who hold an executive or office-bearer position in the registered union, and who have been formally recognised as protected workers under the applicable rules, get this status.
• Recognition is a formal process, not an assumption. The union submits a list of its office bearers for recognition as protected workers, and the employer’s obligation to recognise them follows the process laid down under the rules — it is not simply a matter of whoever the union informally points to.
• The list has a defined ceiling. This is where the “how many” question comes in, and it’s one of the most practically important parts of this provision for HR.

The One Percent Rule: How Many Protected Workers a Factory Can Have

This is the number every plant HR head should know off the top of their head. Under Section 90(4), the number of workers who can be recognised as protected workers in any establishment is capped at one percent of the total number of workers employed there — subject to a minimum of five protected workers and a maximum of one hundred protected workers, regardless of how large the establishment is.

In practical terms:

• A very small unit with, say, 200 workers would still be entitled to a minimum of five protected workers, even though one percent of 200 is only two.
• A very large establishment with, say, 15,000 workers would be capped at one hundred protected workers, even though one percent of 15,000 would otherwise be 150.
• Where more than one registered trade union exists in the establishment, the applicable rules provide for how this capped number is distributed among the different unions, and for the manner in which individual workers are chosen and recognised as protected workers.

HR should maintain a clear, current record of exactly how many protected workers exist in the establishment at any given time and which individuals hold that status, since this directly affects what HR can and cannot do without seeking permission first.

Read: 300 Employee Threshold Under Labour Code: What HR Must Know

What Protection Actually Means in Practice

This is the part that catches HR off guard if it isn’t understood in advance. Under Section 90(3), during the pendency of any proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer is prohibited from taking certain actions against a protected worker who is concerned in that dispute:

• Altering the conditions of service applicable to that protected worker, to his prejudice, as compared to what applied immediately before the proceeding began
• Discharging or punishing the protected worker, whether by dismissal or otherwise, without the express permission in writing of the authority before which the relevant proceeding is pending

This means that if a protected worker is involved in a pending industrial dispute, HR cannot simply proceed with a disciplinary process, transfer, or change in service conditions against that individual the way it might for any other employee. Permission has to be sought in writing from the specific authority — the conciliation officer, tribunal, or other body — before whom the underlying dispute is currently pending.

This is a narrower and more specific protection than people sometimes assume. It applies during the pendency of a proceeding connected to that worker, not as a blanket, permanent shield against any disciplinary action for the rest of that person’s employment.

What HR Should Do Before Taking Any Action Against a Union Office Bearer

1. Check protected worker status first, before drafting any show-cause notice or disciplinary communication. This should be a standard first step whenever a union office bearer is involved in a matter that could lead to discipline, transfer, or a change in service conditions.
2. Confirm whether any industrial dispute proceeding is currently pending that connects this individual to that proceeding. Protection under Section 90(3) applies specifically in that context.
3. If both conditions apply, seek written permission from the authority before which the proceeding is pending, before taking any action that could alter service conditions or amount to discharge or punishment.
4. Keep the recognition list updated and accessible to HR and supervisors, so that this check can be done quickly rather than discovered midway through a process that has already started.
5. Involve IR counsel early if there’s any ambiguity about whether a specific individual currently holds protected worker status, or whether a pending matter counts as an “industrial dispute” for this purpose.

Read: Union Recognition Under New Labour Code: The 51% Rule Explained

What HR Should Avoid

• Do not assume every union office bearer is automatically a protected worker. Status depends on formal recognition under the applicable rules, not just the individual’s union role.
• Do not proceed with discipline against a recognised protected worker connected to a pending dispute without written permission, even if the underlying misconduct feels serious and time-sensitive. Acting without permission can itself become a fresh dispute and undermine the original disciplinary case.
• Do not treat the protection as permanent or absolute. It applies specifically during the pendency of a connected proceeding — HR should reassess the position once that proceeding concludes.
• Do not let supervisors handle this informally. A supervisor unaware of protected worker status could easily initiate action that later has to be reversed or challenged, creating unnecessary friction.

What Can Go Wrong

• HR issues a dismissal order against a protected worker without realising a related industrial dispute is pending, and the action is later challenged as invalid for want of the required permission.
• The union disputes the number or identity of individuals recognised as protected workers, leading to a dispute about the recognition process itself rather than the underlying disciplinary matter.
• A protected worker’s service conditions are changed — for instance, through a transfer — without appreciating that this could be seen as prejudicial alteration of conditions of service during a pending proceeding.
• HR seeks permission from the wrong authority, or fails to get it in writing, weakening the company’s position if the action is later contested.

Read: Multiple Unions in One Factory: How Should HR Handle It?

Practical Examples

Example 1 — Manufacturing/Plant: A components factory wanted to issue a show-cause notice to a shop-floor union office bearer for an alleged attendance violation. Before proceeding, HR checked and found the individual was a recognised protected worker connected to a pending conciliation proceeding on an unrelated wage matter. HR sought written permission from the conciliation officer before issuing the notice, avoiding a procedural challenge later.

Example 2 — Corporate Office with a Newly Formed Union: A back-office unit that had recently seen its support staff unionise wasn’t yet familiar with the concept of protected workers. When a dispute arose involving one of the union’s newly recognised office bearers, HR had to pause a planned transfer decision until it confirmed the individual’s status and whether the transfer would count as a prejudicial change in service conditions during a pending proceeding.

Example 3 — Larger Unionised Plant: A large factory with over 10,000 workers and multiple registered unions had to work out, in consultation with counsel, how the one-hundred-worker cap on protected workers under Section 90(4) would be distributed among the different unions, since the combined lists submitted by all unions exceeded that number.

Example 4 — Small Establishment: A smaller manufacturing unit with 250 workers assumed protected worker status wasn’t relevant to them given their size. HR later learned that even a small establishment is entitled to a minimum of five protected workers under the rule, and had to formally recognise that minimum number once the union raised the matter.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is “protected workman” and “protected worker” the same thing under the new labour code? Yes, functionally. The concept is largely carried forward from the earlier Industrial Disputes Act’s “protected workman” provision, with the terminology updated to “protected worker” in line with the Code’s broader shift in language.

Does every trade union office bearer automatically become a protected worker? No. Only those recognised as such under the applicable rules, subject to the numerical cap for the establishment, hold this status.

How many protected workers can one factory have? The number is capped at one percent of the total workers employed in the establishment, subject to a minimum of five and a maximum of one hundred, regardless of establishment size.

Can HR dismiss a protected worker at all? Yes, but only with the express written permission of the authority before which a connected industrial dispute proceeding is pending, if that worker is concerned in such a proceeding. Outside the pendency of a connected proceeding, this specific protection does not apply in the same way.

What if there is no pending industrial dispute involving the protected worker? The specific protection under Section 90(3) is tied to the pendency of a proceeding connected to that worker. Where no such proceeding is pending, HR should still confirm the exact position with counsel before assuming normal disciplinary process applies without restriction.

Can a protected worker be transferred during a pending dispute? A transfer that prejudicially alters the conditions of service of a protected worker during the pendency of a connected proceeding could fall within the restriction under Section 90(3), and should be reviewed carefully before being carried out.

What happens if HR takes action against a protected worker without the required permission? Such action can be challenged as invalid for want of the required permission, which can complicate or delay the underlying disciplinary matter and create an additional dispute.

How is the number of protected workers distributed when there are multiple unions in the establishment? This is provided for under the applicable rules, which allow for distribution of the capped number among various registered trade unions connected with the establishment, and the manner in which individual workers are chosen and recognised.

Practical HR Takeaway

The protected workman labour code provision under Section 90 is a narrow but important safeguard, and the mistake HR most often makes is either overestimating it — assuming every union representative is untouchable — or missing it entirely by not checking status before initiating action. The safest habit is simple: before any disciplinary step, transfer, or change in service conditions involving a union office bearer, check whether that individual is a recognised protected worker and whether a connected industrial dispute is currently pending. If both are true, get written permission from the right authority before proceeding. Everything else about handling that individual’s conduct stays exactly the same as it would for any other employee.