Absence of prior approval under Section 33(2)(b) renders dismissal void and entitles workman to automatic reinstatement.

The petitioner-workman was issued a charge-sheet on October 12, 2012, for alleged misconduct under Certified Standing Orders

Following a domestic enquiry, he was found guilty and dismissed on October 17, 2014

At the time of dismissal, industrial references involving the company and the Union were pending settlement/withdrawal

The workman challenged the dismissal under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act (IDA), 1947, alleging that the company failed to obtain mandatory approval under Section 33(2)(b).

While the Tribunal found the enquiry fair and proper [para 9], it held the termination void for lack of statutory approval but denied reinstatement, awarding ₹7,00,000 as compensation instead

Both the workman (seeking reinstatement) and the company (challenging the finding of illegal termination) filed writ petitions

The Court applied Section 33(2)(b) of the IDA, which mandates that an employer must pay one month’s wages and apply for approval when dismissing a workman during the pendency of a dispute

It relied on Section 20(3) of the IDA, which deems proceedings as pending until the award becomes enforceable under Section 17A (30 days post-publication)

The primary precedent was the Constitution Bench decision in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal Sharma, which established that a dismissal without Section 33(2)(b) approval is void ab initio and the relationship of employer-employee is deemed never to have ended

It further applied Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. CGIT regarding the statutory duration of "pendency"

The Court rejected the company’s argument that "pendency" ceases the moment a settlement is reached or a reference is withdrawn. It reasoned that Section 20(3) creates a legal fiction where proceedings continue until the award becomes enforceable, which occurs 30 days after publication; since the dismissal occurred during this statutory window, Section 33(2)(b) was triggered

Applying the Jaipur Zila doctrine, the Court noted that the dismissal was "inchoate" and "non est" in the eye of law because the mandatory approval was never sought

Consequently, the Tribunal’s decision to deny reinstatement was found erroneous because, legally, the workman never left service

The Court observed that technological changes or passage of time are insufficient grounds to override the statutory protection of continuity of service

The Court quashed the order of compensation and directed the respondent-company to reinstate the workman with continuity of service [para 40(vi-vii)]. Regarding back wages, the Court ordered: (a) full back wages from termination until the start of his grocery business in 2016; (b) 50% back wages during the business period (2016-Covid closure); and (c) full back wages from the closure of business until actual reinstatement