Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the employment of the respondent as an assistant cashier at the appellant bank's Calcutta branch. An industrial dispute arose out of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent after an incident involving a telegraphic transfer of funds. The bank sought approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for its proposed action of discharging the respondent. On June 17, 1961, one Shankerlal applied for a telegraphic transfer of Rs 4,000 and handed over currency notes of Rs 100 each to the respondent. Shankerlal later realised he had given 41 notes instead of 40, amounting to Rs 4,100, and requested the return of the bundle for verification. The respondent refused, insisting that he had received only Rs 4,000. Shankerlal complained to the manager, and a check by the chief cashier revealed an extra Rs 100 note. The respondent claimed the note was given to him by his mother, but verification with his parents contradicted this. He then claimed a tenant named Mondal gave it to him, but no such person existed. The bank suspended the respondent, issued a charge-sheet, and conducted an enquiry. The enquiry officer found the charges proved and recommended discharge. After a show cause notice and consideration of his explanation, the bank decided to discharge the respondent. On December 27, 1961, before passing the actual discharge order, the bank applied under Section 33(2)(b) for approval of the proposed action. According to the bank, the respondent was actually discharged on January 15, 1962. The Central Government Labour Court, Dhanbad, dismissed the application as not maintainable, relying on Strawboard Manufacturing Co. v. Govind, holding that approval should be sought after actual discharge. The Supreme Court allowed the bank's appeal. The Court held that it was immaterial under Section 33(2)(b) whether the application for approval was made before or after the actual order of discharge. The Strawboard case only decided the latest time by which an employer must make the application after taking action and required that dismissal/discharge, payment of wages, and making of the application be parts of the same transaction. There was nothing in principle against an employer making an application before the actual action, and such a course was more favourable to the employee. On the merits, the Court reviewed the enquiry papers and found that the enquiry was fair and proper, that the respondent had full opportunity to defend himself, and that there was no victimisation or unfair labour practice. The Court declined to remand the matter despite the respondent's illness on the date of hearing, as a written statement had been filed and the matter had been pending since 1961. The appeal was allowed, the labour court's order was set aside, and the bank's application dated December 27, 1961 was approved. No order as to costs was made.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33(2)(b) - Maintainability of Pre-Discharge Approval Application - Application for approval of proposed discharge is maintainable even if made before actual order of discharge; the section does not require that application be made only after action taken - Employer took precaution of applying after enquiry but before imposing punishment, which is more favourable to employee - Held that labour court erred in holding such application not entertainable (Paras 1-3). B) Labour Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33(2)(b) read with proviso - Interpretation of Strawboard Manufacturing Co. v. Govind - Strawboard only decides latest time for application after action taken and that dismissal/discharge, payment of wages, and making application must be parts of same transaction; it does not prohibit pre-action application - Held that earlier decision was misunderstood by labour court (Paras 4-5). C) Labour Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33(2)(b) - Grant of Approval on Merits - Enquiry fairness, no victimisation, no unfair labour practice - Respondent's allegations of unfair enquiry and victimisation were unsubstantiated; enquiry papers showed proper conduct and full opportunity to defend - Held that approval of proposed discharge should be granted; appeal allowed, labour court order set aside, application dated December 27, 1961 approved, no order as to costs (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an application under Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for approval of proposed discharge is maintainable when made before actual discharge; whether the labour court misread Strawboard Manufacturing Co. v. Govind; whether approval should be granted on merits considering enquiry fairness and allegations of victimisation
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; order of labour court set aside; application dated December 27, 1961 under Section 33(2)(b) approved; proposed action of discharge approved; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- An application under Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 for approval of proposed discharge is maintainable even if made before actual order of discharge
- the section does not require that application be made only after action taken
- Strawboard Manufacturing Co. v. Govind only lays down that after action
- dismissal/discharge
- payment of wages
- and making application must be parts of same transaction
- employer may take precaution of applying before actual action
- which is more favourable to employee
- approval must be granted when domestic enquiry was fair
- no victimisation or unfair labour practice
