JAIPUR ZILA SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD. versus SHRI RAM GOPAL SHARMA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 284 · Decided: 17-01-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JAIPUR ZILA SAHAKA~I BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD. 
B 
v. 
SHRI RAM GOPAL SHARMA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 17, 2002 
(S.P. BHARUCHA, CJ., SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, 
N. SANTOSH HEGDE, S.N. VARIAVA AND 
SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Labour Laws 
C 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 : Section 33(2)(b) and proviso thereto. 
Non-approval of dismissal Order under the Proviso-Effect of-Held, 
Order of dismissal becomes ineffective from the date it was passed and not 
from the date of non-approval of the Order of dismissal-Employee is deemed 
to have continued in service entitling him to all the benefits available-Specific 
D Order for his re-instatement is not required. 
Order of dismissal-Failure to make application seeking approval under 
the proviso-Effect of-Held, such failure renders Order of dismissal 
inoperative. 
E 
Interpretation of Statutes. 
Rule of interpretation-No part of statute to be construed as unnecessary 
or superfluous-It should advance legislative intent and serve the purpose for 
which it is enacted. 
F 
The questions involved in these appeals are if approval is not granted 
under proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, 
whether the Order of dismissal becomes ineffective from the date it was 
passed or from the date of non-approval of the order of dismissal and 
whether failure to make application under the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) 
G would render the order of dismissal inoperative. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : I. The non-approval of the Order of dismissal under proviso 
to section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 renders, the 
H dismissal order ineffective from the date it was passed and not from the 
284 
.. " 
'· 
JAIPUR ZILA SAHA KARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD. v. R.G. SHARMA 
285 
date of non-approval of the Order of dismissal and failure to make A 
application under proviso to section 33(2)(b) seeking approval of dismissal 
would render the order of dismissal inoperative. [288-D) 
Strawboard Manufacturing Co. v. Gobind, [1962) Suppl. 3 SCR 618 
and Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd v. S.N. Modak, [1965) 3 SCR 411, relied on. 
S. Ganapathi & Ors. v. Air India & Anr., JT (1993) 4 SC 10; P.H. 
Kalyani v. Mis. Air France Calcutta, [1964) 2 SCR 104 and Jaipur Zita 
Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd v. Ram Gopal Sharma and Anr., [1994) 6 
sec 522, referred to. 
B 
Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd, Chandigarh v. Suresh Chand & Anr., [1978) C 
3 SCR 370, overruled. 
2.1. The proviso to section 33(2)(b) from its very unambiguous and 
clear languages, is mandatory. Any employer who contravenes the 
provisions of section 33 invites a punishment under section 31(1). If an D 
employer desires to take benefit of section (33)(2)(b) for passing an order 
of discharge of dismissal of an employee, he has also to take the burden 
of discharging the statutory obligation. placed on him under the proviso 
to section 33(2)(b). Taking a contrary view that an order of discharge or 
dismissal passed by an employer in contravention of the mandatory 
conditions contained in the proviso does not render such an order E 
inoperative or void, defeats the very purpose of the proviso and it becomes 
meaningless. [294-B-C) 
2.2. It is well settled rule of interpretation that no part of statute 
shall be construed as unnecessary or superfluous. The proviso to section 
33(2)(b) cannot be diluted or disobeyed by an employer. Employer cannot 
disobey the mandatory provision and then say that the order of discharge 
F 
or dismissal made in contravention of section 33(2)(b) is not void or 
inoperative. He cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. 
The interpretation of statute must be such that it should advance ttie 
legislative intent and serve the purpose for which it is made rather than G 
to frustrate it [294-C-Df 
2.3. The proviso to section 33(2)(b) affords protection to a workman 
to safeguard his interest and it is a shield against victimization and unfair 
labour practice by the employer during the pendency of industrial dispute 
when the relationship between them are already strained. An employer H 
286 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] I S.C.R. 
A cannot be permitted to use the proviso of section 33(2)(b) to ease out a 
workman without complying with the conditions contained in the said 
proviso for any alleged misconduct said to be unconnected with the already 
pending industrial dispute. The protection afforded to a workman under 
the said provision cannot be taken away. It is held that an order 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.