Dismissal Of Workman During Pendency Of Industrial Dispute Without Tribunal's Approval Is Void, Karnataka High Court Orders Reinstatement Of Workman

The Karnataka High Court single-judge bench of Justice Shivshankar Amarannavar held that when an industrial dispute is pending in an adjudicatory body, the employer must seek approval from the Tribunal for the dismissal of the worker, as mandated by Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Management argued that the Workman remained silent for six years following the dismissal order which in itself exceeded the three-year limitation period stipulated under Section 2-A of the ID Act for raising a dispute. Section 33 of the ID Act: “ During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance with the standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute or, where there are no such standing orders, in accordance with the terms of the contract, whether express or implied, between him and the workman alter, in regard to any matter not connected with the dispute, the conditions of service applicable to that workman immediately before the commencement of such proceeding; or for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, that workman: Provided that no such workman shall be discharged or dismissed, unless he has been paid wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer.” Observations by the High Court: The issue before the High Court was whether the Corporation's failure to adhere to the provisions of Section 33 of the ID Act prior to issuing the dismissal order renders the said order void and non-est. The High Court noted that this issue was conclusively settled by the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and Others, where the SC held that not making an application under Section 33 for seeking approval of dismissal is a clear case of contravention of the provisions to the Section 33 and dismissal order becomes inoperative or void.