JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner - Toyota Kirloskar Motor Employees Union has filed this writ petition assailing the order dtd. 12/10/2021 dismissing the application filed by the Trade Union to recognize workmen to be "protected workmen" 2. I.A.No.2/2022 is filed by the petitioner to implead the applicants as proposed petitioner Nos.2 to 4. The affidavit is sworn by the proposed petitioner No.2. It is stated in the application that the order pertains to denial of their right to be considered as "protected workmen". It is stated that as an individual workmen whose recognition of status as protected workmen also their employment/non-employment is at stake is a matter required to be considered in the writ petition and the impleading applicants are necessary and proper parties to the petition. 3. Objection statement is filed by respondent No.4- management to I.A.No.2/2022. The application is opposed by the management on the ground that the application is filed by the petitioner-Union and Sec. 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 62 of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka) Rules, 1957 specifically refer to the trade union, which has to choose the workman to be recognized as a protected workman and therefore, the individuals have no role to play in seeking the status of protected workmen, hence, the application is not maintainable and sought for rejection of the application. 4. Heard Sri V.R. Datar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.N. Murthy, learned senior counsel for respondent No.4-management. 5. Sec. 33(4) of the ID Act envisages that a registered trade union have to choose the workman to be recognized as a "protected workmen". Rule 62 of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka) Rules, 1957 contemplates that only registered trade union would communicate to the management, Sub-Clause (4) of Rule 62 speaks about the dispute between the employer and any registered trade union. From the above provisions, it is clear that it is not the individual workman who has any role to play in seeking status of protected workmen, it is only the registered union who can make an application seeking status of certain workman as protected workman and an individual workman cannot fight any petition in their individual capacity both under Sec. 33(4) of the ID Act and Rule 62 of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka) Rules. 6. The decisions placed by the counsel in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Bank Ltd. Vs. 6. The decisions placed by the counsel in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and Others, (2002) 2 SCC 244 , Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others, (1992) 2 SCC 524 and Globe Ground India Employees Union Vs. Lufthansa German Airlines and Another, (2019) 15 SCC 273 are distinguishable and not applicable to the present facts while considering I.A.No.2/2022. The application filed is not maintainable for the reasons stated supra and accordingly, rejected.