JUDGMENT V. Bhaskaran Nambiar, J. 1. The petitioner was an employee of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and a member of the Kerala State Transport Drivers' Union. He was recognised as a 'protected workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act by the State Road Transport Corporation. This protection was cancelled as per Ext. P1 order dated 22-4-1983. Ext. P1 reads thus: "The protection extended to Shri B. Venugopal, Vehicle Supervisor, Neyyattinkara, is cancelled as requested by the Union on condition that, no other remember of the Union will be given protection at Neyyattinkara Unit during the validity of the present list approved. Vide reference second cited." 2. The petitioner raises mainly two contentions: (1) That there is no jurisdiction to issue Ext. P1 and (2) that there was violation of the principles of natural justice. Regarding jurisdiction, the petitioner contends that neither the Industrial Disputes Act nor the Rules made thereunder empower the authorities to cancel the status given to an employee as a protected workman. 3. The relevant provisions are contained in S.33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and R.62 of the Industrial Disputes Rules framed by the Kerala Government. 4. S.33 of the Act ensures that conditions of service etc. shall remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings, before a conciliation officer, Labour Court etc. S.33(3) reads thus: "33. (1) .............. (2) .............. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s.(2), no employer shall during the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, take any action against any protected workman concerned in such dispute (a) by altering to the prejudice of such protected workman, the conditions . of service applicable to him immediately before the commencement of such proceedings; or (b) by discharging or punishing, whether by dismissal or otherwise, such protected workman; save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending. of service applicable to him immediately before the commencement of such proceedings; or (b) by discharging or punishing, whether by dismissal or otherwise, such protected workman; save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending. Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-section, a "protected workman," in relation to an establishment, means a workman who, being a member of the executive or other office bearer of a registered trade union connected with the establishment, is recognised as such in accordance with rules made in this behalf." * * * * * A 'Protected workman' for the purpose of this section, therefore, means that he is a workman who is a member of the executive or an office bearer of a registered union connected with the establishment and is recognised as such in accordance with the rules. The rules make provision for the mode of recognition. R.62, relevant for the purpose, reads thus: "62. Protected workmen:- (1) Every registered trade union connected with an industrial establishment, to which the Act applies, shall communicate to the employer, before the 30th April every year, the names and address of such of the officers of the union who are employed in that establishment and who, in the opinion of the union, should be recognised as "protected workmen." Any change in the incumbency of any such officer shall be communicated to the employer by the union within fifteen days of such change. (2) The employer shall subject to S.33, sub-s.(4), recognise such workmen to be "protected workmen" for the purposes of sub-s.(3) of the said section and communicate to the union, in writing, within fifteen days of the receipt of the names and addresses under sub-r.(1), the list of workmen recognised as protected workmen for the period of twelve months from the date of such communication." * * * * * A reading of the two provisions makes it clear that the purpose of giving a special status as 'protected workmen' is to ensure that at least some of the officers of the union are temporarily insulated from disciplinary proceedings so that the union activities need not suffer. The right to be a protected workman stems from the status as a member of the executive or as an officer of the union. The right to be a protected workman stems from the status as a member of the executive or as an officer of the union. If once a protected workman ceased to be an officer of union, he no longer represents the union and can have no protected status thereafter. He represents no union and the statute gives no protection. When the union informs the authorities that the protection may then be cancelled, the authority is bound to do so. 5. In this case the petitioner, according to the counter affidavit ceased to be an office bearer of the union with effect from 6-4-1983. It is also stated that there were allegations of misappropriation of the union funds against him. If, under those circumstances, the Union reported to the 1st respondent that the petitioner be denied his status as a "protected workman" and the 1st respondent acceded to the request and issued Ext. P1, this court cannot interfere. There is no express provision for cancellation of the "protection." It is implied in the grant of the protected status. It is thus inherent in the authority and need not be expressly conferred. There is also indication in R.62(1) itself that there can be a change in the incumbency, for, R.62(1) expressly says "any change in the incumbency of any such officer shall be communicated to the employer by the union within fifteen days of such change." Jurisdiction to issue Ext. P1 cannot thus be disputed. 6. It is also stated that R.62(2) enables the petitioner to continue for a period of 12 months from the date of recognition. R.62(1) and (2) cannot be interpreted to mean that a protected workman is entitled to continue for 12 months as of right notwithstanding the fact that he has ceased to be a member of the executive of the union or its office bearer. R.62(2) does not guarantee a 12 months protected status for the workmen even when he has severed his connection with the union as its office bearer. 7. The second contention regarding the violation of the principles of natural justice is not of any consequence in this case, for, the allegation made in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has ceased to be an office bearer of the union is not controverted by any reply affidavit. 7. The second contention regarding the violation of the principles of natural justice is not of any consequence in this case, for, the allegation made in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has ceased to be an office bearer of the union is not controverted by any reply affidavit. Even at the time of hearing, it was not asserted that the petitioner was a member of the executive or an officer of the union during the relevant time. If he was not an office bearer, he was not entitled to continue as a protected workman, and there is no necessity of any notice to him as it may be of no avail. His remedy, if any, against his ouster from the office of the union which he was holding can only be against the union and not to launch any attack against the order Ext. P1, cancelling his "protected status." In this view, the contentions are rejected and the Original Petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs.