Strict compliance with wage tender and fair domestic enquiry required for approval under industrial dispute law.

For approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the employer must strictly comply with the statutory preconditions. "One month's wages" was treated as wages for a uniform 30-day period, but the tender was still defective because it omitted the cash equivalent of milk and biscuits and included a shortfall in dearness allowance, amounting to non-compliance with the proviso. The domestic enquiry was also held defective because witnesses were not examined in the workmen's presence and pre-recorded statements were used, contrary to natural justice and the Standing Orders. Non-payment of subsistence allowance during suspension further vitiated the enquiry.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the employer had complied with the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by tendering one month's wages to the workmen; (ii) whether the domestic enquiry was vitiated for breach of natural justice and the Certified Standing Orders; and (iii) whether non-payment of subsistence allowance during suspension invalidated the enquiry and the dismissal approval.

Issue (i): Whether the employer had complied with the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by tendering one month's wages to the workmen.

Analysis: The expression "one month's wages" under the proviso was held to mean wages for a uniform period of 30 days, and not wages varying according to whether the month had 28, 30 or 31 days. However, the tendered amount was still found deficient because it did not include the cash equivalent of milk and biscuits forming part of wages under the applicable settlement, and there was also a shortfall in dearness allowance. These were sufficient to show non-compliance with the statutory proviso.

Conclusion: The requirement of the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) was not complied with, and the finding was against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the domestic enquiry was vitiated for breach of natural justice and the Certified Standing Orders.

Analysis: The enquiry was found defective because the witnesses were not examined in the presence of the delinquent workmen and pre-recorded statements were used instead, thereby depriving them of an adequate opportunity of defence. The procedure adopted was held to be contrary to the principles of natural justice and the applicable Standing Orders.

Conclusion: The domestic enquiry was vitiated on account of breach of natural justice, and this finding was against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether non-payment of subsistence allowance during suspension invalidated the enquiry and the dismissal approval.

Analysis: The workmen were admittedly not paid the subsistence allowance payable under the Certified Standing Orders during suspension. That default was treated as fatal to the fairness and validity of the domestic enquiry, following the governing legal principle that denial of subsistence allowance can impair the employee's ability to defend himself.

Conclusion: Non-payment of subsistence allowance vitiated the domestic enquiry, and this finding was against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed in view of the combined defects in statutory compliance and the domestic enquiry, and no interference with the Tribunal's order was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: For approval under Section 33(2)(b), the employer must strictly satisfy the statutory preconditions, including proper tender of wages constituting full wages for 30 days with all admissible components, and a domestic enquiry conducted fairly in conformity with natural justice; failure on these counts defeats approval.

---