Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between Tata Memorial Hospital, a trust-run institution, and Shashikant Shrikrishna Sompurkar, who was employed as an Upper Division Clerk since 1971 and later transferred to the library as a clerk-cum-typist. Following a charge-sheet issued in January 1981 and a complaint of unfair labour practice by the employee, the employer issued a fresh memorandum on 3 September 1981 alleging that the employee had refused to perform eleven specific library-related tasks throughout August 1981. A subsequent charge-sheet dated 5 October 1981 particularized these acts as gross neglect of work, willful disobedience, and acts subversive of discipline. A domestic enquiry was conducted, and the enquiry officer found the charges proved, leading to a show-cause notice and eventual dismissal on 12 May 1982. As a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, the employer filed an approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, which was registered as Application (IT) 53 of 1982. The Industrial Tribunal, by order dated 6 April 1984, set aside the domestic enquiry as defective and permitted the employer to adduce evidence to prove the charges. After recording evidence, the Tribunal allowed the approval application on 28 April 1989. The employee challenged this order by way of Writ Petition No. 2271 of 1989, which was allowed on 15 July 1993 by the High Court relying on Ganesh Rajan Sarvai v. Bennett Coleman & Co., and the matter was remanded with directions to decide the application afresh. On remand, the Industrial Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 29 April 1994, dismissed the approval application and directed the employer to reinstate the employee with 50% back wages from the date of dismissal until reinstatement. The employer then filed the present writ petition challenging this order. While admitting the petition, the High Court stayed the back wages order but not the reinstatement, and the employee continued in service until his impending retirement on 30 September 2005. The employer argued that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by treating the approval application as a reference under Section 10 and applying powers under Section 11-A, and that the charges were prima facie proved. The employee contended that the charge-sheet was vague and lacked specific details, that the evidence did not support the charges, and that he was victimized. The Court examined the scope of Section 33(2)(b) by referring to Supreme Court decisions, particularly emphasizing that an order of dismissal remains in an inchoate state until approval is granted, and that while the de facto relationship may end, the de jure relationship continues. The judgment as provided is incomplete and does not contain a final decision, as the text ends mid-sentence.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes - Approval of Dismissal During Pendency of Proceedings - Scope of Section 33(2)(b) - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 33(2)(b) - The employer must obtain approval from the Tribunal before effecting dismissal or discharge of a workman involved in a pending industrial dispute; the order of dismissal remains inchoate until approval is granted - The Tribunal is required to consider whether a prima facie case for dismissal is made out and whether the employer complied with procedural requirements; de facto termination may occur but de jure relationship persists until approval (Paras 7, 10). B) Industrial Disputes - Domestic Enquiry - Defective Enquiry - Consequence - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 33(2)(b) - When a domestic enquiry is found defective, the Tribunal may allow the employer to adduce evidence to prove the charges of misconduct before it; the employer must then establish the charges on a prima facie basis to support the dismissal order - In this case, the Industrial Tribunal initially set aside the enquiry and permitted the employer to lead evidence, which it later found insufficient to prove the charges (Paras 3, 4, 5, 6). C) Industrial Disputes - Approval Application - Jurisdiction of Tribunal - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 33(2)(b), 11-A - The Industrial Tribunal while considering an approval application under Section 33(2)(b) does not exercise jurisdiction under Section 11-A which allows the Tribunal to reappreciate evidence and modify punishment; the scope is limited to examining the prima facie case and procedural requirements - The petitioner contended that the Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction by treating the approval application as a reference under Section 10 and invoking Section 11-A powers (Para 5). D) Industrial Disputes - Charge-sheet - Vague Allegations - Proof of Misconduct - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 33(2)(b) - The employer must demonstrate specific instances of misconduct with dates and details; vague allegations may not sustain a dismissal - Here, the respondent employee argued that the charge-sheet lacked details like date, time, and department, and the employer's witnesses did not prove the refusal to work as alleged (Para 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Tribunal correctly dismissed the approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the employer had established a prima facie case for dismissal after the domestic enquiry was set aside
Law Points
- Order of dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 remains inchoate till approval is obtained from the Tribunal
- de facto employer-employee relationship may end but de jure relationship continues until approval is granted by the Tribunal
