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
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 without the prior approval mandated under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Act—when the legality of such dismissal has not yet been adjudicated by a competent forum.
3. It is pertinent to note that the issue at hand is no longer res integra. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in its authoritative Judgment in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal Sharma & Others, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 244 , has conclusively settled the legal position. At paragraphs 14 to 19 of the judgment, the Court held as follows:-
“14. 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 dismiss
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.
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
