Judgment :- This Writ Petition is by the management questioning the order passed by the third respondent dated 7.6.2005 produced at Annexure-K. 2. Respondent No.1 – Union approached the petitioner – management with a letter dated 19.4.2001 interalia, requesting to recognize five office-bearers as 'protected workmen' for the year 2001-02. When it was not considered by the management, they made an application to the third respondent requesting him to recognize the said office bearers as protected workmen. The said application was opposed by the petitioner – management, and on enquiry, the authority rejected the application insofar as two workmen viz., D.C. Chikkegowda and Veerabhadrappa. As against the said order, the Union filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.32751/2001. Learned Single Judge of this Court by his order dated 30th November 2001 allowed the writ petition by observing at para-5 as under: "5. In my considered view, the first respondent has failed to exercise his jurisdiction and power and determine the dispute between the Union and the employer on the application submitted by the petitioner, solely on the ground that the concerned workmen, office bearers whose names were submitted in the application for his consideration before the first respondent, their services were terminated, this view is contrary to the provisions of the Act and rules and law laid down in this regard. Therefore, non-confirming of status of protected workmen upon the office bearers, whose names were furnished by the union is totally illegal and therefore the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following order. The Writ Petition is allowed. Rule issued. The matter is remitted back to the first respondent with a direction to re-examine the matter afresh in the light of the observations made in this order and the law declared by this Court and the Gujarath High Court in the cases referred to supra and decide the matter and pass appropriate order within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order." With the above observation, the matter was remanded to the third respondent with a direction to pass an appropriate order in the light of the observation made by him and also in the light of the decision of the Gujarat High Court reported in (1977 LAB I.C. 826), in the matter of R. Balarubramanian & Others vs. Carborundum Universal Limited. As against the said order, it appears, the management filed W.A.No.210/2002. The said writ appeal was dismissed by order dated 7th April 2005. When the matter came up before the third respondent on remand, the petitioner – management filed statement of objections to which the Union also filed rejoinder. The third respondent considering the material on record, held that, the two names sponsored by the union viz., D.C. Chikkegowda and C. Veerabhadrappa are entitled to be recognized as 'protected workmen' for the year 2001-02. 3. Sri. C.K. Subrahmanya, learned Counsel appearing for management submitted that, workmen cannot be retrospectively recognized as protected workmen. He further submitted that, these workmen were dismissed as on the date of the recognition and they cannot be granted recognition for the said year. He relied on the judgment of this Court reported in ( 1986 (1) LLJ 181 ) in the matter of M/S. Canara workshops vs. Presiding Officer and Another and submitted that, recognition of workmen based on the application filed by the union is not automatic, there has to be some positive action on the part of the management and further submitted that, two workmen, whose names were sponsored, were dismissed as on the date of the consideration of the application and the third respondent has erroneously recognized the persons, who were no longer workmen of the management. It is further contended that, the decisions binding on the authority have not been considered by the third respondent and overlooking the same, the impugned order has been passed. He also submitted that, the order passed by the learned Single Judge earlier is only a remand to the third respondent and third respondent should have disposed of the application on its merit by taking into consideration the other relevant factors. 4. Sri. K.S. Subramanya, learned Counsel appearing for the union submitted that, the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are the same contentions, which were raised in the earlier proceedings and this Court in W.P.No.32751/2001 has considered all these questions and negatived the same. 4. Sri. K.S. Subramanya, learned Counsel appearing for the union submitted that, the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are the same contentions, which were raised in the earlier proceedings and this Court in W.P.No.32751/2001 has considered all these questions and negatived the same. In this regard, he relied on the order of the learned Single Judge and submitted that, the question of dismissal of the workmen was considered and has been decided and it was held that, the application has to be considered as on 1st May of the year and the recognition is for the period of one year i.e., from 1st May of the year and till the 30th April of the next year and dismissal order has come after the applications filed by the union. He also submitted that, the decision of the Gujarat High Court was considered by this Court and this Court relying on the decision of the Gujarat High Court and the Apex Court, has decided the matter and it is not now open to the management to contend to the contrary. Further submitted that, third respondent following the decision of this Court has passed the order. 5. He also submitted that, the third respondent has considered the question as to the positive act on the part of the management and on consideration, the impugned order is passed. 6. It is not necessary to go into all the questions raised by Sri. C.K. Subrahmanya as these contentions were considered by this Court on earlier occasion. The management had specifically raised a contention as regard to the dismissal of the workman before he was recognized and this Court considering the said aspect and also considering the decision in R. Balarubramanian's case (supra) has observed that: " ..... C.K. Subrahmanya as these contentions were considered by this Court on earlier occasion. The management had specifically raised a contention as regard to the dismissal of the workman before he was recognized and this Court considering the said aspect and also considering the decision in R. Balarubramanian's case (supra) has observed that: " ..... Trade union to submit the application under the provisions of the I.D.Act read with Rule 62 of the Rules and not communicating the decision of recognizing a list of workmen as protected workmen for the purpose of the I.D.Act submitted by a Trade Union within 15 days from the date of receipt of the list, then the dispute required to be resolved by the Jurisdictional conciliation officer under sub-section 4 of Section 33 of the I.D.Act read with Rules 62(4) of the Rules and the order of protection to be given to the workmen whose names are furnished by a Trade Union which is required to be granted after determination of the dispute between the Trade Union and the Employer/management, irrespective of the date of communication of the list of workmen as protected workmen it shall come into operation from 1st of May of that year and expires on 30th of April of the next year not from the date of communication or of the order by either the conciliation officer or employer......" With this observation, learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition holding that, the termination of services of two workmen after they submitted the list is totally illegal and directed the third respondent to consider the matter in the light of his observation. In the light of the order passed by this Court between the parties, it is clear that, the question as regard to the dismissal of two workmen from service during the pendency of the application will not have any bearing and question also will not have any bearing of passing the order at a later stage. The recognition will go back to the period for which it is applied i.e., from 1st May of that year to the 30th April of next year. In this case, admittedly, the third respondent considering the application having been filed for recognition for the year 2001-02 and the said application was made before the order of dismissal, has rightly recognized the said workmen as 'protected workmen' for said period only. In this case, admittedly, the third respondent considering the application having been filed for recognition for the year 2001-02 and the said application was made before the order of dismissal, has rightly recognized the said workmen as 'protected workmen' for said period only. As the question of their dismissal has been considered by this Court in W.P.No.32751/2001 and has held that the same will not come in the way of recognizing the said workmen as protected workmen. In the light of the same, the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the management would amount to reopening the issue, which has already been decided. In view of the same, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and same is dismissed.