Dismissal during a pending industrial dispute without Section 33(2)(b) approval is void and inoperative.

The petitioner-hospital challenged separate Awards dated 6 January 2005 and 3 December 2004 passed by Industrial Tribunal-II in complaints under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”) filed by Om Prakash and Chander Pal Singh, respectively.

Om Prakash had been appointed as a safai karamchari in 1974, while Chander Pal Singh had been appointed as a Helper-cum-Bearer in 1993.

Industrial Disputes Nos. 86/1998, 115/1998 and 11/1999 were pending when the workmen were removed from service and subsequently dismissed—Chander Pal Singh on 31 October 2000 and Om Prakash on 5 April 2000—without the management obtaining approval under the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act.

The Tribunal held that the dismissals were non-est and inoperative for want of approval and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.

In Chander Pal Singh’s case, the Tribunal also found the domestic enquiry vitiated because he had been denied representation by trade-union office-bearers.

During the writ proceedings, Chander Pal Singh was re-employed from 20 October 2008, while Om Prakash had superannuated, though the record contained inconsistent dates regarding his superannuation.

1. Whether the pending proceedings constituted “industrial disputes” concerning the workmen so as to attract the protection and approval requirement under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act.

2. Whether the workmen’s dismissals, effected during the pendency of those disputes without an application for approval under Section 33(2)(b), were void, non-est and inoperative.

3. Whether the Tribunal erred in granting reinstatement and full back wages without separately adjudicating the validity of the domestic enquiry and the justification for dismissal.

4. What relief ought to be granted in view of Chander Pal Singh’s re-employment and Om Prakash’s subsequent superannuation.

Section 33 of the ID Act operates as a statutory safeguard preserving industrial peace during the pendency of an industrial dispute. Under the proviso to Section 33(2)(b), an employer seeking to discharge or dismiss a workman concerned in the pending dispute must pay one month’s wages and apply to the authority before which the dispute is pending for approval of the action; these requirements are mandatory.

In Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal Sharma, AIR 2002 SC 643, the Supreme Court held that dismissal without such approval is void, non-est and inoperative, and that the workman is deemed to have continued in service with consequential benefits; making no application, or withdrawing one before decision, constitutes contravention of Section 33(2)(b).

Section 33A provides a mechanism for challenging a contravention of Section 33 before the authority adjudicating the pending dispute.

In exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not function as an appellate court and ordinarily interferes only for patent perversity, findings based on no evidence, or conclusions which no reasonable tribunal could reach.

The Tribunal had recorded, on the basis of the record and admissions by the management witnesses, that the three industrial disputes were pending when the workmen were dismissed and that no approval application under Section 33(2)(b) had been filed.

The High Court found no material demonstrating that the hospital was not a party to those disputes or that the workmen were not “concerned workmen”; the fact that references had been made and were pending was sufficient to attract the statutory protection.

Applying Jaipur Zila, the Court held that the dismissals had no legal efficacy because the mandatory approval requirement had been ignored.

The challenge based on the disciplinary enquiries also failed: in Chander Pal Singh’s case, the enquiry was independently found unfair because union representation had been denied.

In any event, once the dismissals were held void and inoperative for breach of Section 33(2)(b), reinstatement with consequential benefits followed as a legal consequence, and the Tribunal’s findings were not perverse or amenable to correction under Articles 226 and 227.

However, because Chander Pal Singh had already been re-employed and Om Prakash had superannuated, the Court considered lump-sum compensation preferable to further computation of disputed wages, increments, revisions and pensionary benefits.

In W.P.(C) No. 21917/2005, concerning Chander Pal Singh, the Award was modified to provide a lump-sum payment of ₹2,00,000 towards full and final settlement of claims arising from the Award, payable within eight weeks; the hospital remained liable for any unpaid amount due under subsisting Section 17B/minimum-wage orders.

In W.P.(C) No. 21650/2005, concerning Om Prakash, reinstatement was treated as incapable of implementation due to his superannuation, and the Award was modified to provide ₹7,00,000 towards full and final settlement of claims arising from the Award, payable within eight weeks, subject to payment of any unpaid Section 17B/minimum-wage dues.

Both writ petitions and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.