The resolution plan approval extinguishes all employee claims not included, barring their adjudication against new management.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties heard finally.

2. All the Writ Petitions involve identical facts and issues. As such, they are taken up together.

3. In Writ Petition No.12730 of 2025, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Aurangabad in Compliant (IT) No.1 of 2019 in Reference (I.T.) No.8 of 2017, in complaint filed under Section 33 -A of The Industrial Disputes Act (for brevity “the Act”) seeking a declaration that the petitioner / company has contravened the provisions of (2)(b) of the Act and having committed an offence, be punished with imprisonment for six months along with penalty or compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and also for quashing and setting aside dismissal order dated 15.04.2019 with direction to the petitioner / company to reinstate the respondent / employee with continuity of service and full back wages.

4. The facts are primarily taken up from Writ Petition No.12730/2025, as under:

According to the complainant, the petitioner / company is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It is a Scheduled Engineering Industry engaged in the business of manufacturing of forged Industrial Automobile Components and the Manager appointed and authorized by the respondent has supervision and control over the activities of the complainant. The complainant is a permanent workman since 02.11.2018 and his last drawn wages are Rs.22,500/- per month. The complainant is a active member of the Ahmednagar Forging Kamgar Sanghtana (for brevity “the Trade Union”). There was wage settlement between the Trade Union and the Management of the respondent in the year 2013, which expired in 2016. The respondent delayed the further wage agreement so the Trade Union raised dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal vide Reference IT No.8 of 2017.

The respondent defaulted in repaying loan of the bankers / lenders. So bankers / lenders initiated proceedings under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as per Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 before the N.C.L.T. A resolution professional was appointed. But during the pendency of the resolution process and industrial dispute, local management acted in a malicious and revengeful manner against the complainant. Even arbitrary action was taken against the active members of the Trade Union. Thus, a show cause notice was issued on 18.09.2018 with a view to victimize the complainant. Complainant replied on 08.10.2018 but without considering it, charge-sheet was issued on 10.10.2018 alleging false and fabricated charges of sleeping on duty. The respondent threatened to terminate the services of the complainant, unless he resigned from the membership.

One Mr. V.D. Kulkarni was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Even application to appoint defence representative was rejected, but in view of the order of the Industrial Tribunal, the complainant was allowed to appoint defence representative. The enquiry was conducted without following principles of natural justice and dismissed the employee without compliance of mandatory provision of Section 33 of the Act.

Thus the dismissal dated 15.04.2019 is in utter violation of mandatory provisions, which is challenged before the Industrial Tribunal. No approval was sought under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act, so the de jure relationship is still continuing and protection granted to the workmen cannot be taken away by the respondent.

It is stated that the order of the dismissal is ineffective and the complainant is entitled for reinstatement with continuity and backwages.

The respondent/emp