2002 (1) TMI 1312 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the order of dismissal becomes ineffective from the date it was passed or from the date of non-approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Whether failure to make an application under Section 33(2)(b) renders the order of dismissal inoperative.

Summary:

Issue 1: Ineffectiveness of Dismissal Order
The Supreme Court addressed the conflict between different benches regarding the effectiveness of a dismissal order under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Strawboard Manufacturing Co. and Tata Iron & Steel Co. cases held that if approval is not granted, the dismissal order becomes ineffective from the date it was passed, entitling the employee to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of disapproval. Conversely, the Punjab Beverages case held that non-approval or failure to apply for approval does not render the dismissal order inoperative; it merely subjects the employer to punishment under Section 31 of the Act, and the employee's remedy lies in a complaint under Section 33A or a reference under Section 10(1)(d).

Issue 2: Failure to Apply for Approval
The Court emphasized that the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) is mandatory, requiring the employer to pay one month's wages and apply for approval simultaneously with the dismissal. The Court reiterated that non-compliance with these conditions renders the dismissal order inoperative. The Court rejected the view in Punjab Beverages that contravention of Section 33(2)(b) does not invalidate the dismissal order, stating that such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of the proviso and allow employers to dismiss employees without adhering to statutory protections.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court endorsed the views in Strawboard and Tata Iron & Steel Co., holding that the dismissal order remains inchoate and ineffective without approval under Section 33(2)(b). The Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Tribunal's and High Court's findings that the appellant failed to comply with Section 33(2)(b) provisions, rendering the dismissal order inoperative.