In Section 33(2)(b) proceedings, both parties must receive equal opportunity to lead evidence.

The Management dismissed the Workman on 20 June 2020 while a domestic enquiry into earlier charges remained incomplete, and sought approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

The Assistant Labour Commissioner rejected the approval application, finding that no domestic enquiry had been completed; it also held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant interim wages under Section 10(4)

The Single Judge quashed that order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, relying on John D’Souza v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

The Workman appealed, contending that the Management had not sought or reserved an opportunity to lead evidence and that the remand would prejudice him

1. Whether the Writ Court was justified in remanding the approval application under Section 33(2)(b) for fresh consideration

2. Whether the Workman had been denied a fair and effective opportunity to lead evidence and present his defence in the approval proceedings

Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 empowers the statutory authority to examine whether the required approval should be granted in connection with a dismissal during the pendency of an industrial dispute.

As explained in Lalla Ram v. D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd. and reaffirmed in John D’Souza v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, the authority must examine whether a proper domestic enquiry was held; where no enquiry was held or the enquiry was defective, the employer may be permitted to prove the alleged misconduct by independent evidence, with a corresponding full and equal opportunity for the workman to adduce rebuttal evidence and establish victimisation

The Court found that the domestic enquiry had been abandoned without a conclusion and that the dismissal order contained no finding of guilt from an enquiry

Although the absence of a completed enquiry did not, by itself, end the approval proceedings without considering whether the employer sought to justify the dismissal on its merits, the Workman had not been given a structured opportunity to present evidence in his defence

The Court therefore considered it necessary to preserve equal evidentiary opportunity for both parties while imposing a strict timetable to prevent further prejudice to the Workman, who had been out of employment since June 2020

Both parties were permitted to adduce evidence, and the Assistant Labour Commissioner was directed to conclude the proceedings within 45 days of receiving the certified copy of the judgment.

The Management was directed to pay the Workman regular wages during that period until the approval application’s final disposal, and the parties were directed to appear before the authority on 2 November 2026