TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an order of dismissal passed during the pendency of industrial proceedings without compliance with the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ineffective or inoperative from its inception, and whether failure to apply for approval or withdrawal of such application leaves the dismissal valid until set aside under Section 33A.
Analysis: The proviso to Section 33(2)(b) is mandatory and requires, as part of the same transaction, payment of one month's wages and making of an approval application before the action of discharge or dismissal can operate. The object of the provision is to protect workmen from victimization and unfair labour practice during pendency of industrial disputes. Reading Sections 31, 33 and 33A together does not dilute the mandatory character of the proviso. Section 31 is only penal and does not supply a remedial answer for the workman. Section 33A provides a challenge to an approval granted, but it does not mean that an order passed in breach of the proviso becomes effective until set aside under Section 33A. The contrary view that non-approval, or failure to apply, does not make the dismissal inoperative was rejected.
Conclusion: An order of dismissal or discharge made in contravention of the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) is void and inoperative, and if approval is refused or no valid approval application is made, the workman is deemed to have continued in service without needing a separate reinstatement order.
Final Conclusion: The Court affirmed the earlier view that compliance with the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) is essential for the dismissal to operate, and the appeals failed.
Ratio Decidendi: During the pendency of industrial proceedings, dismissal or discharge for misconduct unconnected with the dispute becomes effective only upon strict compliance with the mandatory proviso to Section 33(2)(b); absence of such compliance renders the action inoperative in law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
