JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 14 March 2018. The High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the management against a judgment of a Single Judge. The Single Judge had upheld an order dated 31 March 2003 of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul, rejecting an application filed by the management under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947¹[“ID Act”]. The management is in appeal.

3. The appellant had an establishment which was functioning in Dindigul District. An application was filed by the appellant on 16 November 2002 before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act for the grant of approval of its action to dismiss thirty-one workmen against whom disciplinary proceedings had been initiated and concluded. The material facts which need to be summarized for the purpose of the present appeal are thus: On 4 July 2002, the workmen raised an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the ID Act. The dispute was taken into conciliation. While the conciliation proceedings were pending, the workers commenced a stay-in strike on 31 July 2002. On 1 August 2002, another dispute was raised by the workmen, which was taken into conciliation. The management initially suspended forty-seven workmen. A charge memo was issued to the workmen on 20 August 2002 to which there was a reply on 30 August 2002. The management commenced a domestic enquiry. After the conclusion of the enquiry, a show cause notice was issued to the workmen on 29 October 2002. On 16 November 2002, an order of dismissal was issued. Following the order of dismissal, the management filed an application for approval before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour under Section 33(2)(b).

4. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour held that since conciliation proceedings were pending with reference to a dispute which was raised by the workmen on 4 July 2002 and, subsequently, on 1 August 2002, prior approval before the termination was necessary under Section 33(1)(b) and that the action of management in taking steps in pursuance of Section 33(2)(b) was unlawful. The application for approval under Section 33(2)(b) was rejected. The order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour was challenged in writ proceedings before the High Court. By a judgment dated 4 March 2013, the Single Judge held that since conciliation proceedings were pending before the Conciliation Officer, “even though the dismissal order is for some other reason”, yet the prior approval of the authority specified in terms of Section 33(1)(b) was necessary. The order of the Single Judge was carried in appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench, while affirming the judgment, directed the appellant to pay (i) 50% of the back wages for the period from the date of dismissal till the date of the closure of the appellant’s unit; (ii) closure compensation; and (iii) interest at 6% per annum calculated from the date of closure. The appellant has closed its unit from 8 July 2009.

5. Mr Niraj Kumar Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour failed to notice the distinction between Section 33(1)(b), which postulates a requirement of prior approval, and Section 33(2)(b), on the other hand, which requires compliance with two conditions, namely, (i) payment of one month’s salary, which is not in dispute; and (ii) the filing of an application to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer. Counsel submitted that the provisions of Section 33(1)(b) are attracted when the action of the management is in respect of any misconduct connected with the dispute. On the other hand, where the action of the management is for misconduct not connected with the dispute, Section 33(2)(b) would stand attracted. On the above premises, it has bee