Withdrawal of petitions under Section 33(2)(b) must be voluntary and properly documented; courts must not pressure counsel into non-pressing cases.

[Made by S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.,]

Under assail is the writ order dated 29.01.2026 passed in W.P.No.39721 of 2025.

2. The appellants herein filed an approval petition under Section

33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 {hereinafter “ID Act” for the sake of brevity} seeking approval of the order of dismissal passed against the second respondent. The dismissal order has been passed in a departmental disciplinary proceedings.

3. The Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, Chennai, passed an order on 24.04.2024 which reads as follows:

“Accordingly, ‘Application under sub-section (2)

(b) of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947’ in question is not pressed.”

4. The appellants preferred a recall petition which was dismissed on the ground that at the time of passing the order dated 24.04.2024, the counsel for Management was present. Against the dismissal order, the writ petition came to be instituted.

5. The learned Single Judge also held that the learned counsel for the Management was very much present when the Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, Chennai, passed an order recording their submission ‘not pressed’ and therefore, the writ Court dismissed the writ petition. Challenging the said order, the present intra-Court appeal has been instituted.

6. Mr.Anand Gopalan, learned counsel for the appellants, would mainly contend that no written memo seeking withdrawal of the approval petition was filed. Though the learned counsel for the appellants was present before the Tribunal, he was not in a position to defend his case, since the Presiding Officer emphasised the learned counsel to withdraw the petition as not pressed, failing which, the Court will impose a cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. To substantiate the said facts, the learned counsel would rely on sworn affidavit filed by one Mr.T.Madhusudhan Reddy, counsel on record for appellants in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in M.A.No.1 of 2024 in I.D.No.30 of 2022 particularly, paragraph No.7, which reads as follows:

“7. It is respectfully stated that at the spur of the moment being worried about the costs of Rs.1 Lakh, but without considering the undue prejudice that would be caused to the petitioners if the Approval Petition was dismissed, we concurred without the mandate of the Management to not to press it to avoid costs. Pursuant thereto, the Approval Petition was dismissed by this Hon’ble Tribunal, albeit we had not made any written endorsement to that effect on it. It is further respectfully stated that the petitioners thus have suffered gross injustice and it is settled law that no client shall suffer for the acts of faults of its attorney.”

pursuant thereto.....

7. The said factual position was reiterated before the writ Court and the writ Court also recorded the said fact in the impugned writ order in paragraph No.6 which reads as follows:

“6.............................. He would submit that on the day of hearing, it is true that the Bench directed the counsel that it will impose costs of Rs.1,00,000/-. According to him, after considering the objections to the Approval Petition, the Bench had made such an observation.”

8. Relying on the affidavit filed by the counsel appearing for the Management as well as the submissions made before the writ Court, which was recorded in paragraph No.6, the learned counsel for the appellants would conted that there was pressure on the counsel to act and therefore, such an oral submission in the absence of any written memo or endorsement in the case bundle, need not be held against the Mangement for effective a