JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is presented by Wonderla Karmika Sangha (association for short), challenging order dated 5.11.2018 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.46712/2017. 2. We have heard Shri T.S.Anantharam, learned advocate for the appellant, Shri S.S. Mahendra, learned AGA for the State and Shri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.2. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, appellant-association submitted a letter to the Management to recognize five office bearers of the Trade Union namely, S/Sh. Ravi Kumar H.N, Kanthraju.C, Rajashekara K.B, Yathish K.P. and Thoppegowda P.D, as protected workmen under Section 33 (3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act for short) for the year 2017-18. The management did not respond. Hence, appellant filed a petition before the Assistant Labour Commissioner for declaration of aforementioned persons as protected workmen. Management filed its objections, pointing out that S/Sh. Ravi Kumar H.N, Kanthraju.C and Thoppegowda P.D, could not be declared as protected workmen as departmental enquiry was pending against them and they were facing criminal trial. With regard to Shri Ravi Kumar H.N, it was contended that, he was forcibly collecting money from the customers and chasing away those customers, who refused to pay money. With regard to S/Sh. Rajashekara K.B. and Yathish K.P, it was contended that, they could not be declared as protected workmen since they were transferred to Hyderabad. Appellant by filing rejoinder sought to substitute names of S/Sh. Rajshekara K.B and Yathish K.P, with S/Sh. Sharanappa M. Gali and Govardhan B.A. The management objected to the said names stating that they had been dismissed from service by order dated 13.9.2017. 4. The Assistant Labour Commissioner by his order dated 16.9.2017 (annexure R) declared S/Sh. Ravi Kumar H.N, Kanthraju.C, Thoppegowda P.D, Govardhan B.A, and Sharanappa M. Gali, as protected workmen. Management challenged the said order in the instant writ petition. By the impugned order, Hon’ble Single Judge has allowed the writ petition in part and set-aside the order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner so far as declaration of S/Sh. Ravi Kumar H.N, Kanthraju.C and Thoppegowda P.D, as protected workmen. With regard to declaration of S/Sh. Govardhan B.A, and Sharanappa M. Gali, the Hon’ble Single Judge has remitted the case to the Assistant Labour Commissioner to re-consider the matter on the basis of evidence produced by both the parties. Hence, this writ appeal. 5. Ravi Kumar H.N, Kanthraju.C and Thoppegowda P.D, as protected workmen. With regard to declaration of S/Sh. Govardhan B.A, and Sharanappa M. Gali, the Hon’ble Single Judge has remitted the case to the Assistant Labour Commissioner to re-consider the matter on the basis of evidence produced by both the parties. Hence, this writ appeal. 5. Shri Anantharam, contended that Hon'ble Single Judge failed to notice that Trade Union members have to be protected to voice their legitimate grievances. The criminal cases alleged against them are all false. Dismissal of Shri. Sharanappa M. Gali and Shri. Govardhan B.A. are also illegal. If Trade Union members are not protected, there shall be no check on Managements oppressive actions. 6. Shri. Ashok Haranahalli, supporting the impugned order contended that the Hon’ble Single Judge has analysed the case in detail and recorded cogent reasons. He submitted that the issue is fully covered by the authority in M/s. Fouress Engineering (India) Ltd. v. Fouress Engineering and The Asst. Labour Commissioner, ILR 2013 Kar 1531. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned advocates appearing for the parties and learned AGA for the State and perused the records. 8. The Hon’ble Single Judge has framed following six questions for consideration: 1. Whether a workman can claim the special status of "protected workman" automatically under Section 33 (3) of the Act inter alia on the ground that he/she is a member of the Executive, or an office-bearer of a registered trade union, or not? 2. Whether the status of "protected workman" can be denied to such a workman, or not? 3. Whether the said status can be denied inter alia on the ground that the workman is facing a departmental inquiry and/or a criminal trial, or not? 4. Whether the mere filing of an F.I.R. against a workman would disentitle the workman from being declared as "protected workman", or not? 5. Whether the workman becomes disentitled to claim the special status as a "protected workman" after criminal charges are framed, but before a conviction is recorded? 6. Whether it is essential that the workman should be facing a criminal trial for "serious offences", or not, before he/she can be denied the special status of being declared as a "protected workman" under Section 33 (3) of the Act?" 9. 6. Whether it is essential that the workman should be facing a criminal trial for "serious offences", or not, before he/she can be denied the special status of being declared as a "protected workman" under Section 33 (3) of the Act?" 9. After recording elaborate reasons and placing reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Fouress, Hon’ble Single Judge has held that if a workman is facing departmental enquiry or a criminal trial, he can be denied status of a protected workman. On facts, he has recorded in paragraph No.24, that the Assistant Labour Commissioner has declared the workmen as protected workmen ostensibly on the ground that the workmen were neither facing charges for serious offences nor they were convicted by the Trial Court. This Court in Fouress, has held that, request for granting of protected workmans status can be rejected if criminal cases were pending against such workman or on the ground that they were dismissed from service. 10. So far as the case of S/Sh. Sharanappa M. Gali and Govardhan B.A, are concerned, the Hon’ble Single Judge has recorded that, it is unclear if their dismissal from services was brought to the notice of the Labour Commissioner, since they were dismissed on 13.9.2017 and the Commissioner had passed his order on 16.9.2017. In such circumstance, the Hon’ble Single Judge has remitted the matter to reconsider only with regard to the cases of the said two workmen. 11. In view of the findings of facts recorded in the impugned order and the law laid down by this Court in Fouress, we are at one with the Hon’ble Single Judge. 12. Resultantly, this appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. 13. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the pending interlocutory application stands disposed of. No costs.