Non-compliance with the mandatory provision of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 renders the dismissal order void and inoperative, and the employer is bound to treat the employee as continuing in service and give them all consequential benefits.

JUDGMENT

Anuja Prabhudessai, J. - Rule. With consent Rule made returnable forthwith. These Petitions involve a common question of law, hence the same are heard together and are being decided by this common Judgment.

2. The Petitioner-Employer assails Awards of the Labour Court-II, Pune. By the impugned Awards, the Labour Court has held the dismissal orders to be void and inoperative for non-compliance of provisions under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the ID Act') and directed the Petitioner to reinstate all the Respondent-workmen with continuity of service, full back wages and all consequential benefts.

3. The facts giving rise to the present petitions are as under: -

The Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing Tube Valves for Automobile Sector. Respondent-workmen were employed in one of the factories of the Petitioner. They were served with charge sheets alleging willful insubordination, disobedience, illegal strike, riotous and disorderly behaviour, etc. which constituted misconduct under model standard orders under Sections 24(a), (b), (k), (l), (w) framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. The Petitioner, not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the Respondent-workmen, initiated enquiry into the alleged misconduct. The Enquiry Officer recorded a finding that the Respondent -workmen were guilty of misconduct. Hence, vide order dated 10/10/2014 the Petitioner terminated the services of Respondent-workmen with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the Respondent-Workmen raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10 of the ID Act. The Reference was on the question of validity and legality of termination of services of the Respondent-Workmen and if so, whether the Respondent-Workmen were entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service, back-wages, and other benefits.

4. The Respondent-workmen fled their statement of claim before the Labour Court inter alia contending that dismissal is illegal and void for want of approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act. It was the case of the Respondent - workmen that issuance of charge sheet and consequent dismissal was a result of victimization for having joined the Union viz. Maharashtra Rajya Rashtriya Kamgar Sangh (INTAK), which was espousing their cause. The Respondent-workmen contended that the dismissal order was passed pending the Reference i.e., Ref. (IT) No.17 of 2014 pertaining to the Charter of Demands raised by the Union of which they were the members. The Respondent-workmen contended that the dismissal orders were inoperative, having been passed without seeking approval from the authority before which the Reference was pending. On merits the Respondent-workmen alleged that the enquiry was not fair and proper and that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer as regards the misconduct were perverse.

5. The Petitioner denied that the issuance of a charge sheet was an act of victimization. The Petitioner contended that the Respondent-Workmen had participated in the enquiry, which was conducted to enquire into the misconduct committed by them. It was further alleged that the Enquiry Officer upon considering the material on record held the Respondent-workmen guilty of the charges levelled. The Petitioner claimed that it was not necessary to seek approval and denied that the order of dismissal was void or inoperative for breach of Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act.

6. The Labour Court framed preliminary issues relating to fairness of the enquiry and perversity or otherwise of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The Labour Court, by Part -I Award on the said preliminary issues, held the enquiry to be fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Labour Court further held that there was sufficient and acceptable evidence before the Enquiry Officer to come