Illegal strike and domestic enquiry issues do not automatically bar reinstatement absent proved individual misconduct.

SC commentary on industrial discipline and reinstatement under the Industrial Disputes Act explains that breach of section 33, or the absence of a prior domestic enquiry, does not by itself end the merits of a dismissal dispute; the tribunal may still examine the misconduct and relief on the evidence. It also states that participation in an illegal pen-down strike does not automatically bar reinstatement. However, denial of reinstatement may be justified where the employer proves individual responsibility for violent, trespass-related, or subversive conduct. On the facts discussed, reinstatement was maintained only for the employee whose record on responsibility was confused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether dismissal of workmen for participation in an illegal strike was void for breach of section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and for want of a prior domestic enquiry, so as to entitle them to reinstatement as a matter of course; (ii) Whether participation in a pen-down strike, alleged civil or criminal trespass, and alleged subversive conduct by some employees justified refusal of reinstatement.

Issue (i): Whether dismissal of workmen for participation in an illegal strike was void for breach of section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and for want of a prior domestic enquiry, so as to entitle them to reinstatement as a matter of course.

Analysis: Section 33 imposes a statutory ban on discharge or dismissal during pendency of industrial proceedings without express permission in writing, but breach of that provision does not by itself conclude the merits of the dismissal dispute. The scope of an enquiry under section 33A, and likewise under a reference under section 10, is not confined to the mere fact of contravention; the tribunal must still examine whether the employer can justify the dismissal on merits and, where no domestic enquiry was held, may itself determine the misconduct and the appropriate relief. The statutory scheme differs from the regime under service-protection provisions such as article 311, because permission under section 33 only removes the statutory bar and does not validate the order for all purposes.

Conclusion: The absence of permission under section 33 and the absence of a prior enquiry did not automatically make reinstatement inevitable; the tribunal retained jurisdiction to decide the industrial dispute on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether participation in a pen-down strike, alleged civil or criminal trespass, and alleged subversive conduct by some employees justified refusal of reinstatement.

Analysis: A pen-down strike falls within the statutory definition of strike, and mere participation in an illegal strike does not, by itself, disentitle workmen to reinstatement. Civil trespass, even if assumed, was not treated as a sufficient ground to deny reinstatement, and criminal trespass was not established because the requisite intent to insult or annoy was not proved. The foreign authority on sit-down strikes was distinguished on its facts, since the conduct there involved violent seizure and continued occupation of the employer's premises after discharge and injunction. On the evidence, the employer failed to prove a general conspiracy or collective responsibility of all workmen for the offending publications, and the tribunal's finding that only a limited group was directly and actively concerned with the subversive documents was upheld, save that the case of Munna Lal Gupta stood on a confused record and warranted reinstatement. Accordingly, refusal of reinstatement could be sustained only against the workmen individually found responsible for the relevant acts.

Conclusion: Mere participation in the pen-down strike did not bar reinstatement, but reinstatement was rightly denied to those individually proved to have taken part in the violent or subversive conduct, except Munna Lal Gupta, who was held entitled to reinstatement.

Final Conclusion: The Bank's appeals failed, while the employees' appeal succeeded only to the extent of restoring Munna Lal Gupta to the benefit of reinstatement, leaving the tribunal's order otherwise intact.

Ratio Decidendi: In industrial adjudication, breach of section 33 or absence of a prior domestic enquiry does not automatically invalidate the merits enquiry; and participation in an illegal strike does not by itself justify dismissal or denial of reinstatement unless the employer proves additional individual misconduct relevant to the relief sought.

---