Suspended Office-Bearers Not Protected Workmen | HC
- Blog|News|Labour & Industrial Laws|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 17 January, 2026

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
List of Cases Reviewed
- HLL Lifecare Ltd. v. Hindustan Latex Labour Union (AITUC) [2011] 11 taxmann.com 536 (Kerala) (para 11) followed
List of Cases Referred to
- HLL Lifecare Ltd. v. Hindustan Latex Labour Union (AITUC) [2011] 11 taxmann.com 536 (Kerala) (para 10).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.

Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied

CA | CS | CMA