Pending criminal case does not bar domestic enquiry; limited review under section 33(2) governs dismissal approval.

Pending criminal proceedings do not by themselves oblige an employer to defer domestic disciplinary action. Although delay may be advisable in grave or legally or factually complex matters to avoid prejudice to the employee's criminal defence, no rule of natural justice requires postponement in every case, and a simple charge with a fair domestic enquiry is not invalidated by the employee's refusal to participate. In considering approval under section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the tribunal had only a limited role to see whether the dismissal was prima facie justified, not to reappraise the case as on appeal. The refusal to grant approval was therefore erroneous and the dismissal was approved.

---

---

Issues: Whether an employer is bound to await the result of a criminal trial before taking disciplinary action and whether approval of dismissal under section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 could be refused on that ground.

Analysis: The existence of pending criminal proceedings does not, by itself, require the employer to postpone disciplinary action. While it may be advisable to wait in grave or legally/factually complex matters so that the employee's defence in the criminal case is not prejudiced, no rule of natural justice mandates such delay in every case. Where the charge is simple and the domestic enquiry is otherwise fair, the employee's refusal to participate cannot invalidate the enquiry. In exercising jurisdiction under section 33(2), the tribunal was required to consider whether the dismissal was prima facie justified and within its limited statutory role, rather than reappraise the matter as if in appeal.

Conclusion: The refusal to grant approval was erroneous. The dismissal order was approved and the appeal succeeded.

---