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: (i) Whether contravention of section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by dismissing a workman without obtaining approval renders the order of dismissal void and inoperative so that wages can be claimed under section 33C(2); (ii) whether withdrawal of an approval application under section 33(2)(b) is equivalent to refusal of approval; (iii) whether, after such contravention, the Labour Court can entertain a claim under section 33C(2) without prior adjudication under section 33A or section 10.
Issue (i): Whether contravention of section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by dismissing a workman without obtaining approval renders the order of dismissal void and inoperative so that wages can be claimed under section 33C(2).
Analysis: Section 33 is designed to protect workmen during pending industrial proceedings and to regulate employer action by requiring permission or approval in specified situations. The scheme of the Act shows that a breach of section 33 does not by itself extinguish the dismissal order. Proceedings under section 33C(2) are confined to computation of an existing right, and a dismissed workman cannot invoke that provision to assert that the dismissal was unlawful unless the dismissal has already been set aside in appropriate proceedings. The inquiry under section 33A also shows that, even after contravention is proved, the Tribunal must still examine the merits of the dismissal, which would be unnecessary if the dismissal were automatically void.
Conclusion: The contravention of section 33(2)(b) does not render the dismissal void and inoperative. The workman cannot claim wages under section 33C(2) on the footing that he continued in service.
Issue (ii): Whether withdrawal of an approval application under section 33(2)(b) is equivalent to refusal of approval.
Analysis: Refusal of approval occurs only when the Tribunal considers the application on merits and declines to lift the statutory ban. Withdrawal prevents any adjudication on merits and leaves the Tribunal without a decision refusing approval. A withdrawn application stands on the same footing as no application having been made, and it cannot be treated as a rejection of approval.
Conclusion: Withdrawal of the approval application is not the same as refusal of approval.
Issue (iii): Whether, after such contravention, the Labour Court can entertain a claim under section 33C(2) without prior adjudication under section 33A or section 10.
Analysis: The workman's proper remedies are a complaint under section 33A or a reference under section 10, where the merits of the dismissal can be examined and relief, including reinstatement, can be granted. Section 33C(2) cannot be used as a substitute for such adjudication. The workman becomes entitled to wages under section 33C(2) only after the dismissal has been adjudicated as unjustified and set aside by the competent authority.
Conclusion: The Labour Court had no jurisdiction to grant wages under section 33C(2) on the basis of an unadjudicated challenge to dismissal.
Final Conclusion: The legal effect of the decision is that breach of section 33(2)(b) is not automatically destructive of the dismissal order, and the correct course for the workman is to seek adjudication under section 33A or section 10 before claiming service benefits as continuing in employment.
Ratio Decidendi: Contravention of section 33(2)(b) creates an enforceable statutory breach but does not by itself void the dismissal; until the dismissal is set aside in proper adjudication, no claim for wages can be maintained under section 33C(2) on the footing of continued service.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
