P&H HC Dismisses Auto-Parts Worker’s Challenge to Firing Approval, Leaves Dismissal Dispute Open for Labour Forum

The petitioner was dismissed by M/s Bellsonica Auto Component India Pvt. Ltd. on 23 December 2022 following two disciplinary proceedings: one concerning an allegedly false ITI certificate and another concerning unauthorised absence.

The employer paid his dues and one month’s wages and sought approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Labour Commissioner allowed the application on 19 November 2024.

In the writ petition, the petitioner challenged, among other matters, the timing of the approval application, the fairness and findings of the inquiries, his claimed protected-workman status, alleged victimisation, and the effect of a tripartite settlement.

The Court considered whether those matters should be pursued through the statutory industrial-dispute remedy.

Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act requires the competent authority to examine whether a proper domestic inquiry was held, a prima facie case for dismissal was made out, and the provision’s mandatory conditions were fulfilled; an approval order does not itself foreclose adjudication of the dismissal’s legality and propriety.

Section 2A deems an individual workman’s dispute concerning dismissal or termination to be an industrial dispute and provides a statutory route, subject to its requirements, for adjudication.

Although an alternative statutory remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, the High Court ordinarily declines to intervene where an effective remedy exists and disputed facts require evidentiary examination; recognised exceptions include enforcement of fundamental rights, breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, and a vires challenge [para. 21, citing Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1].

The Court also noted Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Govind on compliance with the requirements concerning simultaneous payment and application under Section 33(2)(b), leaving its application to the facts for examination on the record.

The petitioner’s objections required examination of the inquiry records, evidence, documents sought, the explanation for absence, and the circumstances surrounding the disciplinary action.

The disputed date on which the approval application was presented required scrutiny of the original application and office record; the protected-workman claim and the settlement’s effect likewise required consideration of the relevant proceedings and terms.

Because these issues extended beyond the approval order and concerned the dismissal itself, the Court held that the industrial adjudicatory forum could effectively consider them under Section 2A.

The pleaded natural-justice grievance related primarily to the conduct of the inquiries and evidentiary matters, and did not, on the facts presented, warrant bypassing that remedy.

It dismissed the writ petition on the ground that an efficacious statutory remedy was available and granted the petitioner liberty to pursue the remedy under Section 2A in accordance with law.

All questions of fact and law—including inquiry validity, Section 33(2)(b) compliance, protected-workman status, the settlement, and victimisation—were left open; pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.