1. Dismissal without approval under Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act — Benefit of wages for non-working period. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 569
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, JJ.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Chaturvedi S/o Shri Suraj Mal (Conductor) – Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1277 of 2025
Decided On : 10-03-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : R.N. Mathur, Prateek Mathur, Utkarsh Dubey
For the Respondent: Rahul Ghiya
For the Appellants : R.N. Mathur, Prateek Mathur, Utkarsh Dubey
For the Respondent: Rahul Ghiya
When a dismissal order under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not approved, the employee is deemed to have continued in service. If the failure to work is due to the employer's failure to obtain approval, the employee is entitled to full service benefits.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 33(2)(b) and 33-A - Approval of dismissal or discharge - Effect of non-approval - Where an application for approval of dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) is refused, the employee is deemed to have continued in service as if the order of dismissal had never been passed - The order remains inchoate and incomplete until approval is granted - Employee is entitled to all available benefits without the need for a specific order of reinstatement (Paras 4, 7 and 8).
(B) Service Law - Principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ - Applicability in cases of unauthorized termination - Where the failure of an employee to join duty is attributed to the employer's failure to obtain statutory approval under Section 33(2)(b), the consequence of non-working cannot be held against the employee - Protective provisions of the Act must operate strictly to ensure the employee is not penalized for an illegal termination (Paras 2, 7 and 8).
Facts of the case:
An employee was dismissed from service for misconduct. The employer sought approval of the dismissal order under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was subsequently rejected by the tribunal. A single judge directed the employer to pay the employee all service benefits from the date of dismissal until the date of superannuation, along with interest at 6% per annum. The employer preferred an appeal, contending that since the employee did not perform any duty for a prolonged period, the principle of ‘no work no pay’ should apply, and only notional benefits or 50% of wages should be awarded.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the single judge's order was correct in light of the prevailing law on Section 33(2)(b). Since the dismissal order was not approved, it was inoperative. The court observed that the respondent was not at fault for the failure to join duty, and the responsibility lay with the employer to either maintain a valid termination order or allow the employee to work.
Issues: The main issue was whether the principle of ‘no work no pay’ can be invoked by an employer to deny full service benefits to an employee whose dismissal was not approved by the tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi: A dismissal order under Section 33(2)(b) is inchoate until approved by the authority. If approval is refused, the employee is legally deemed to have continued in service. Because the employee's inability to work was a direct result of the employer's failure to obtain statutory approval, the employee is entitled to full service benefits, and the 'no work no pay' rule is inapplicable.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- labour and employment
-
practice and procedure
-
appeal
- dismissal of appeal (Para 9)
-
appeal
- constitutional law
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued no work no pay; respondent relied on deemed continuance after non-approval of dismissal under Section 33(2)(b). (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. Non-approval of dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) renders order inoperative; employee deemed in service. (Para 7 , 8 )
4. When dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) is not approved, employee is deemed to have continued in service. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Single Judge's order directing service benefits from dismissal to superannuation upheld. (Para 9 )
6. What is the consequence of non-approval of a dismissal order under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act?
The employee is deemed to have continued in service without interruption, entitling them to all service benefits. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. Can an employer apply the 'No Work No Pay' principle when dismissal is not approved under Section 33(2)(b)?
No, because the employee is deemed in service and fault cannot be attributed to them for non-working. (Para 2 , 8 )
8. What is the effect of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal Sharma on similar dismissals?
It holds that if approval under Section 33(2)(b) is refused, the dismissal is inoperative and the employee is deemed in service. (Para 4 , 7 )
9. What benefits is an employee entitled to after dismissal without Section 33(2)(b) approval?
The employee is entitled to full service benefits from the date of dismissal until superannuation, including arrears with interest. (Para 1 , 7 )
JUDGMENT :
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant - RSRTC against the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent has been allowed and the appellants were directed to pay the respondent all the service benefits from the date of passing the dismissal order dated 28.11.2002 till he attains the age of superannuation. Further, a direction was also issued to pay interest @ 6% per annum over the arrears of service benefits. It was also directed that the needful be done within a period of twelve weeks from the date of passing of the order, failing which, interest was ordered to be levied @ 9% per annum and the same was ordered to be beared by the responsible officer.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the respondent-petitioner was dismissed from service for carrying passengers without ticket on 28.11.2002 and thus, he did not performed any duty till his time of superannuation on 30.09.2015. Learned counsel, however, submits that the dismissal order could not fall within the parameters of Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1947’) and thus, was not approved by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks invocation of the simple jurisprudence of ‘No Work No Pay’. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that once the respondent-petitioner has not served for such a prolonged period, at best, the Hon’ble Single Judge could have awarded him notional benefits and/or award 50% of the total wages.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Manager of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Haneef Khan (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24258-24259/2019), decided on 13.2.2025.
4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is a Constitutional Bench judgment, which is holding the field regarding non-approval of termination under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 244. Para 14 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
“Where an application is made under Section 33(2)(b) proviso, the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer has to examine whether the order of dismissal or discharge is bona fide; whether it was by way of victimization or unfair labour practice; whether the conditions contained in the proviso were complied with or not etc. If the authority refuses to grant approval obviously it follows that the employee continues to be in service as if the order of discharge or dismissal never had been passed. The order of dismissal or discharge passed invoking Section 33(2)(b) dismissing or discharging an employee brings an end of relationship of the employer and employee from the date of his dismissal or discharge but that order remains incomplete and remains inchoate as it is subject to approval of the authority under the said 9 provision. In other words, this relationship comes to an end de jure only when the authority grants approval. If approval is not given, nothing more is required to be done by the employee, as it will have to be deemed that the order of discharge or dismissal had never been passed. Consequence of it is that the employee is deemed to have continued in service entitling him to all the benefits available. This being the position there is no need of a separate or specific order for his reinstatement. But on the other hand, if approval is given by the authority and if the employee is aggrieved by such an approval, he is entitled to make a complaint under Section 33-A challenging the order granting approval on any of the grounds available to him. Section 33-A is available only to an employee and is intended to save his time and trouble inasmuch as he c
