Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, challenged the judgment and order dated 7 May 2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, rejecting its Application (IT) No. 21 of 2006 under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for approval to dismiss the Respondent, Ravindra M. Pande, a Clerk in the Octroi Department. The Respondent was chargesheeted on 21 March 2003 for colluding with others to defraud the Corporation by issuing a cheque of Rs.4,10,885/- as octroi refund to a fictitious entity, depositing it in a bank account, and withdrawing Rs.1,50,000/- which was paid to him. An enquiry found him guilty, and the Corporation sought approval for dismissal. The Tribunal upheld the finding of guilt but rejected approval on the ground that the Corporation had made deductions while paying wages under the proviso to Section 33(2)(b), thus not complying with the requirement of paying one month's wages. The High Court examined the issue and held that the Tribunal's approach was hyper-technical. The misconduct was serious, involving corruption and fraud, and the wage deduction was minor. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and granted approval to the dismissal, thereby allowing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Approval of Dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) - Minor Wage Deduction - Serious Misconduct - The Industrial Tribunal rejected approval to dismissal of a municipal employee found guilty of diverting octroi refund of Rs.4,10,885/- and receiving Rs.1,50,000/- as illegal gratification, solely on the ground that the employer made minor deductions while paying wages under the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The High Court held that the Tribunal's approach was erroneous as the misconduct was grave and the wage deduction was minimal; the Tribunal ought to have granted approval. (Paras 1-28)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Tribunal could reject approval to dismissal action under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the ground of minor deficit in payment of wages despite the employee being found guilty of serious misconduct of diverting octroi refund and receiving illegal gratification.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Industrial Tribunal's order dated 7 May 2010 and the order on review dated 5 January 2012, and granted approval to the dismissal of the Respondent under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Law Points
- Section 33(2)(b) Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- approval of dismissal
- minor wage deduction
- serious misconduct
- corrupt practice
- reinstatement with backwages
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (07) 13
Writ Petition No. 10116 of 2015
Mr. Suresh Pakale, Senior Advocate with Mr. D. R. Kawale and Mr. Santosh Parad for the Petitioner; Mr. Prakash Devdas i/b Ms. Vidula S. Patil for the Respondent
Dr. Satish Bhide, for and on behalf of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging Industrial Tribunal's order rejecting approval to dismissal of a municipal employee under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner-Municipal Corporation sought setting aside of the Tribunal's order and grant of approval to dismiss the Respondent.
Filing Reason
The Industrial Tribunal rejected the Corporation's application for approval to dismiss the Respondent on the ground of minor wage deduction despite upholding the finding of guilt for serious misconduct.
Previous Decisions
Industrial Tribunal rejected Application (IT) No. 21 of 2006 on 7 May 2010; Review Application rejected on 5 January 2012.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Tribunal could reject approval to dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the ground of minor deficit in payment of wages despite the employee being found guilty of serious misconduct.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Tribunal erred in rejecting approval on a hyper-technical ground of minor wage deduction, ignoring the gravity of the proven misconduct of corruption and fraud.
Respondent argued that the Corporation failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of paying one month's wages without deductions, thus the Tribunal correctly rejected approval.
Ratio Decidendi
The requirement of paying one month's wages under the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is directory and not mandatory; minor deductions do not vitiate the approval if the misconduct is serious and the employee is found guilty. The Tribunal ought to have granted approval in such circumstances.
Judgment Excerpts
The issue for consideration in the present Petition is whether the Industrial Tribunal could have rejected approval to dismissal action in respect of a municipal employee (resulting in his reinstatement with backwages), who is found guilty of corrupt practices only on account of alleged minor deficit in payment of wages under Proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Serious misconduct of diverting octroi refund amount of Rs. 4,10,885/- to a third-party account and receiving amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- therefrom for himself is proved against the Respondent and even Industrial Tribunal has upheld the finding of guilt.
Procedural History
The Petitioner issued chargesheet on 21 March 2003; enquiry held; Respondent found guilty; Petitioner sought approval under Section 33(2)(b) via Application (IT) No. 21 of 2006; Industrial Tribunal rejected application on 7 May 2010; Review Application rejected on 5 January 2012; Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 10116 of 2015 before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 33(2)(b)
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988:
