Court Upholds Section 33(2)(b) Compliance Requirement Under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
In a landmark decision, the Bombay High Court has ruled in favor of Santosh Chandrkant Potdar, a former employee of Bajaj Auto Limited, ordering his reinstatement after determining that his dismissal was in violation of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The judgment underscores the mandatory nature of obtaining prior approval from the relevant authority for dismissals during the pendency of industrial proceedings.
The case centered around the dismissal of Potdar, who was terminated by Bajaj Auto Limited on October 17, 2014, without the requisite approval from the tribunal while industrial proceedings were ongoing. The court found the termination to be legally inoperative, thereby entitling Potdar to reinstatement and back wages.
Justice Amit Borkar, presiding over the case, emphasized the protective intent of Section 33(2)(b), stating that it ensures no workman is prejudiced during the pendency of industrial disputes. The court highlighted that the dismissal order remained incomplete and inchoate without the tribunal's approval, thus rendering it void ab initio.
Potdar, who had been employed with Bajaj Auto for over thirteen years, contested his dismissal, arguing that it was arbitrary and discriminatory compared to the treatment meted out to other similarly situated employees. The Industrial Tribunal initially declined reinstatement, awarding him monetary compensation instead. However, the High Court overturned this decision, asserting that reinstatement follows as a statutory consequence of the illegality of the termination.
The judgment mandates Bajaj Auto Limited to reinstate Potdar within eight weeks and to provide him with full back wages for the period of unemployment prior to his grocery business venture, partial back wages during the business operation, and full back wages post-closure of the business until reinstatement.
Legal experts view this judgment as a reinforcement of the statutory protections afforded to workers under the Industrial Disputes Act, affirming that employers cannot bypass procedural requirements even after disputes are settled.
This decision marks a significant victory for labor rights, ensuring that statutory safeguards against wrongful dismissals are upheld, and sets a precedent for similar cases where compliance with procedural mandates is contested.
Bottom line:-
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Compliance with Section 33(2)(b) is mandatory during the pendency of industrial proceedings. Dismissal of a workman without prior approval under Section 33(2)(b) renders the termination inoperative and non-est in law.
Statutory provision(s): Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33(2)(b), Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
Santosh Chandrkant Potdar v. Bajaj Auto Limited, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc id # 2891189
