Relief under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be denied based on minor salary deductions.

The Respondent, a clerk in the Octroi Department of the Petitioner-Corporation, was found guilty in a domestic enquiry of conspiring to defraud the Corporation of ₹4,10,885/- through a fraudulent octroi refund.

The Enquiry Officer recommended removal from service, and a dismissal order was issued on 30 November 2006.

Because an industrial dispute was pending, the Petitioner sought approval for the dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act).

The Petitioner claimed to have offered the Respondent ₹14,468/- as one month’s wages via money order.

However, the Industrial Tribunal rejected the approval application, holding that the Petitioner failed to comply with the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) because deductions (NPF, IT, LIC, etc.) were made from the Respondent's November 2006 salary and an annual increment was not included.

The Petitioner challenged this order and the subsequent rejection of its Review Application.

1. Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in rejecting the approval for dismissal by conflating regular monthly wages with the mandatory "one month’s wages" required under the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act?

2. Whether minor deficits or statutory deductions in the payment of one month's wages are sufficient grounds to reject an approval application when serious misconduct is proved?

Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates that a workman unconnected to a pending dispute may only be dismissed if they are paid "wages for one month" and an application for approval is filed.

The Tribunal may grant conditional approval subject to making good a deficit in wages rather than rejecting it outright for statutory deductions, as held in S. Ganapathy v. Air India.

A bona fide dispute or difficulty in calculating the exact wage amount should be brought to the Tribunal's notice and does not automatically vitiate the application, as per Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v. Waman B. More.

The Court found that the Industrial Tribunal committed a "grave error" by examining the pay slip for November 2006 (regular salary earned for work) instead of the additional ₹14,468/- transmitted via money order specifically for Section 33(2)(b) compliance.

The Petitioner proved through postal receipts and pleadings—none of which were effectively countered by the Respondent—that a full month's wages were indeed offered.

The Tribunal's finding of non-compliance was thus deemed "perverse" as it ignored existing evidence.

Regarding deductions and increments, the Court noted that a "hyper-technical approach" regarding minor deficits should not allow a corrupt employee to escape the consequences of proven forgery and bribery.

The Court emphasized that if a dispute existed regarding the right to an increment at the relevant time, its exclusion did not constitute a statutory violation.

The Court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the Industrial Tribunal's orders dated 7 May 2010 and 5 January 2012, formally granting approval for the Respondent's removal from service effective 30 November 2006.

Protection of the ID Act cannot be overstretched to reward grave misconduct with reinstatement and backwages.