Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. MARIA CLETE
Management, Chemplast Sanmar Limited – Appellant
Versus
B. Karunanithi, S/o. Balakrishnan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction of workmen to claim wages under section 33 c(2) related to dismissal (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. supreme court's interpretation of section 33(2)(b) and dismissal legality (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. role of conciliation and requirement for prior approval before dismissal (Para 8 , 10) |
| 4. requirement for prior approval before dismissal. (Para 11) |
| 5. limitations and remedies available under section 33c(2) for claim enforcement (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. rights of dismissed workmen to claim wages. (Para 28) |
| 7. claims put forward for back wages by dismissed employees (Para 29 , 30) |
| 8. evidentiary requirements under the industrial disputes act. (Para 40 , 56) |
| 9. final adjudication dismissing writ with orders for payment (Para 58) |
JUDGMENT :
A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.
Heard.
2. Two stalwarts of the Labour Bar have appeared before this Court and addressed the matter with thoroughness and distinction, leaving no aspect unexplored. However, the controversy lies within a narrow compass. The issue for consideration is whether the respondent workmen can maintain a claim for back wages under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, solely on the ground that their dismissal was effected witho
Workers can claim back wages if dismissed without statutory approval under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, as such dismissals are deemed void.
The court ruled that S.33(2) applies to all employers and workmen in an industrial dispute, regardless of the utility concern designation, insisting on clear compliance with statutory procedures for ....
Termination of employment deemed punitive requires prior permission under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was not obtained, rendering the termination illegal.
Failure to seek approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act renders dismissal void and inoperative, as established by the Supreme Court in Jaipur Zila case.
Failure to seek approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act renders dismissal orders void ab initio, overriding subsequent interpretations from Smaller Benches.
Dismissal during pendency of industrial proceedings without Section 33(2)(b) approval renders it inoperative; workman deemed continuing in service with automatic reinstatement and adjusted back wages....
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 ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
