Back
Decade-Long Labour Battle Ends in Victory: Bombay HC Orders Bajaj Auto to Reinstate Workman
In a significant ruling for Indian labour law, the has mandated the reinstatement of a dismissed worker at , declaring his 2014 termination void for failing to secure prior approval under . Justice Amit Borkar, in a common judgment on cross-writs (WP 15252/2024 and WP 8711/2024), held that industrial disputes remain "pending" until post-award publication, even if settled factually. This echoes recent coverage highlighting the court's emphasis on statutory pendency overriding practical closure.
From Factory Floor Misconduct to Courtroom Showdown
Santosh Chandrkant Potdar, a skilled workman with over 13 years at Bajaj Auto's Chakan plant, faced a charge-sheet for multiple misconducts under the company's Standing Orders. A domestic inquiry in 2014 found him guilty. While a parallel industrial dispute with the recognised union, , lingered—despite a settlement via a MoU reinstating 13 similar workmen—Potdar was dismissed on without Section 33(2)(b) approval.
Potdar challenged this via a complaint before the (later transferred). The Tribunal upheld the inquiry's fairness but, in its award, deemed the dismissal illegal due to pendency yet awarded only Rs 7 lakh compensation, denying reinstatement. Both sides appealed: Potdar sought full reinstatement, Bajaj contested the illegality finding.
Workman's Plea: 'Restore My Job, Not Just a Payout'
argued the termination was per Supreme Court precedents like , where non-approval renders dismissal inoperative, entitling automatic reinstatement with continuity. She dismissed Bajaj's "changed work culture" claim as conjecture, stressing Potdar's long service, unemployment post-grocery shop failure in , and the company's training capacity. Citing and , Cox urged full back wages, rejecting compensation as it presupposes valid severance.
Bajaj's Defence: 'No Live Dispute, No Approval Needed'
countered that the MoU and reference withdrawals ended pendency, making Section 33(2)(b) a "technicality." He invoked against extending statutory fictions and to argue the provision guards against victimization in live disputes only. With a fair inquiry complete, he warned broad interpretation could violate , urging the Tribunal's compensation as equitable after a decade.
Decoding the Legal Labyrinth: Pendency, Approval, and Continuity
Justice Borkar dissected Section 33's protective intent—to shield workers from retaliation during strained proceedings—differentiating subsections for connected/unconnected misconducts. Crucially, applying Grindlays Bank , he ruled under that proceedings deem-continue till post-publication of any award (even settlement records), binding employers to approval, one month's wages, and scrutiny for .
Rejecting Bajaj's "form over substance" plea, the court affirmed Jaipur Zila 's doctrine: unapproved dismissals are "," never legally effective, auto-restoring service without separate orders. Passage of time or hypothetical changes don't override this; no evidence supported Bajaj's adaptation concerns. On back wages, balancing Potdar's two-year unemployment, grocery stint (50% deduction), and post-Covid joblessness, partial full wages were granted.
Precedents like reinforced anti-victimization goals without paralysing employers, while fictions in stayed confined to legislative purpose.
“The order of dismissal or discharge passed invoking Section 33(2)(b) ... remains incomplete and remains as it is subject to approval ... If approval is not given, ... it will have to be deemed that the order ... had never been passed.” ( Jaipur Zila , quoted at para 31)
Court's Gavel: Reinstatement, Not Handout
Dismissing Bajaj's writ, partly allowing Potdar's:
“The respondent-company is directed to reinstate the petitioner-workman ... within a period of eight weeks ... entitled to continuity of service ... back wages [full pre-2016 and post-Covid; 50% during business]” (para 40).
This mandates arrears within 12 weeks post-reinstatement, adjustable for prior payments. Implications ripple: employers must calendar statutory pendency precisely, or face automatic continuity. For workmen, it fortifies Section 33 safeguards, prioritizing reinstatement over lump sums in approval breaches— a win for industrial peace amid evolving workplaces.
“Once breach is established, consequence follows by operation of law.” (para 32)
As other reports note, this clarifies "deemed pending" even post-settlement, urging diligence in disputes.
