JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, which is a partnership firm has challenged the order dated 9th April, 1996 passed by the Conciliation Officer under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act directing the petitioner employer to recognise the names of five workmen as "protected workmen" for the year 1995-96 from the list submitted by the Union. 2. It appears that the only registered trade union by its letter dated 21st September, 1995 submitted a list of 13 workmen which should be recognised by the management as "protected workmen" u/s 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is contended that in fact the list was communicated by fax message which was sent at 9 p.m. on 21.9.1995 and was actually received by the management in the morning of 30.9.1995. The first objection raised by the management was that in as much as the rule 66 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay Rules), 1957 states that every trade union connected with an industrial establishment to which the act applies, shall communicate to the employer, before the 30th September every year, the names and addresses of such of the officers of the trade union who are employed in that establishment and who, in the opinion to the trade union, should be recognised as protected workmen, the list submitted on 30th September would be invalid as it is not before 30th September. We find that the aforesaid objection raised by the management is frivolous .In the context before 30th September, in Rule 66 means on or before 30th September of each year. Hence we do not find any merit at all in this objection by the employer. 3. Shri Rele then submitted that out of 13 in the list of workmen, the Conciliation Officer was not justified in selecting first 5 workmen. We do not find any merit in this objection as well. Undoubtedly under the provisions of Section 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the number of workmen to be recognised as "protected workmen" for the purpose of sub-section (3) shall be one per cent of the total number of workmen employed therein subject to a minimum number of five protected workman. In the facts before us it is not disputed that minimum number of five "protected workmen" would be the entitlement of the Union. In the facts before us it is not disputed that minimum number of five "protected workmen" would be the entitlement of the Union. Under Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 66 when a dispute arises between an employer and any trade union in any matter connected with the recognition of protected workmen under the rule, dispute shall be referred to the Conciliation Officer concerned, whose decision thereon shall be final. In view of these provisions in the rule itself, we do not see any merit in the objection as to how or why the Conciliation Officer should have selected first five workmen. The union submitted a list of 13 persons. The entitlement of the Union was only 5 workmen. As such the Conciliation Officer had enough jurisdiction to select 5 out of 13 and when the Union had no objection to those names of 5 workmen, we see no justification as to how an employer can raise an objection. 4. Shri Rele vehemently contended that the workmen which are to be named as protected workmen must answer the description as is required under the explanation to section 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Under the aforesaid explanation '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 that behalf. Thus it is clear that any workman who is a member of the executive or other office bearer of a registered trade union, would be entitled to be named as protected workmen. We were taken through the constitution of the trade union and it is pointed out that under Clause 21-C(vii), the member of the Factory Committee or Establishment Committee shall be deemed to be the officers of the Union for the purpose of the Section 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the rules made thereunder. We do not see any merit in the objection to the entitlement of the union to so provide. Shri Rele also relied upon the judgment rendered on 12.4.1971 by the division bench of this Court in O.S. Appeal No. 5 of 1971 in support of his contention that the Committee members cannot be the office bearers or officers of the union. Shri Rele also relied upon the judgment rendered on 12.4.1971 by the division bench of this Court in O.S. Appeal No. 5 of 1971 in support of his contention that the Committee members cannot be the office bearers or officers of the union. We have gone through the passage relied upon by Shri Rele from the aforesaid judgment and we find that on the basis of the provisions of the Constitution and rules of the particular Union with which the bench was dealing and the duties of the member's of the Factory Committee in that particular case, the bench came to the conclusion that the member of only Factory Committee or the Sabha would not be office bearer under its Constitution and Rules. In same paragraph the bench has clearly stated that the test to determine the office bearer for the purpose of Trade Unions Act, is not precise and decision as to who is or who is not office bearer u/s 2(b) may, therefore, present difficulty in border-line cases and must therefore rest on the facts of each case. Apart from the aforesaid we are of the clear view, that in view of the amended definition, there should be no difficulty as far as the facts and circumstances of the present case are concerned. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any infirmity at all in the order impugned and the petition stands rejected in limine. Certified copy expedited.