2001 (5) TMI 941 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Right of a workman after the employer's application for approval of dismissal/discharge is refused by the Tribunal.
2. Remedy available to the workman in such a situation.
3. Legal implications of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Right of a Workman after Refusal of Approval for Dismissal/Discharge
The core question in this case is the right of a workman after the employer's application for approval of dismissal/discharge is refused by the Tribunal. The appellant, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, initiated a departmental inquiry against the respondent, a Junior Superintendent. Following the inquiry, the respondent was dismissed from service on 5th March 1984. The employer's application for approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was rejected by the Tribunal on 30th July 1984. Subsequent appeals and a special leave petition by the employer were dismissed by the High Court and the Supreme Court, respectively. Despite the rejection of approval, the employer neither reinstated the respondent nor paid his wages, leading the respondent to file a writ petition for reinstatement and back wages, which was allowed by the High Court.

Issue 2: Remedy Available to the Workman
The High Court directed the employer to reinstate the respondent with all arrears of salary, annual increments, and attendant benefits, deeming him to have been in continuous service since 5th March 1984. The High Court also allowed the employer to place the respondent under suspension, subject to payment of full salary, due to pending criminal prosecution. The employer's writ appeal against this judgment was dismissed, leading to the current appeal by special leave.

Issue 3: Legal Implications of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 33 of the Act ensures that conditions of service remain unchanged during the pendency of certain proceedings. Sub-section (1) prohibits employers from altering service conditions or dismissing/punishing workmen involved in a dispute without the express permission of the authority handling the pending proceedings. Sub-section (2) allows employers to discharge or dismiss a workman for matters unconnected with the pending dispute, provided they pay one month's wages and seek approval from the authority. If approval is refused, the dismissal is invalid and inoperative, and the workman is deemed never to have been dismissed.

The Supreme Court, referencing previous judgments, emphasized that an order of dismissal remains inchoate until Tribunal approval is obtained. If approval is refused, the employer must treat the workman as continuing in service and provide all consequential benefits. The workman can enforce this right by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Tribunal's rejection of the employer's application on merit obligates the employer to reinstate the workman and pay back wages, even if the workman is subsequently placed under suspension and a new inquiry is initiated.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court committed no illegality in directing the employer to reinstate the respondent and pay back wages. The appeal was dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 10,000.