M.D. TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus NEETHIVILANGAN, KUMBAKONAM

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 499 · Decided: 04-05-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

--
.( 
M.D. TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
A 
v. 
NEETHIVILANGAN, KUMBAKONAM 
MAY 4, 2001 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
B 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-S. 33(2)(b)-Dismissal-Emp/oyee-
Dismissed from service during pendency of dispute before Tribunal-
Application for approval of order of dismissal-Rejected by Tribunal-Effect 
of-Held; order of dismissal, invalid-Employee entitled to reinstatement C 
with continuity of service and backwages. 
Appellant-Corporation initiated Departmental inquiry against 
respondent employee and on establishment of the charges, an order of 
dismissal of respondent from service was passed. Thereafter, appellant-
Corporation made an application before the Tribunal for approval of said D 
order of dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947, which was dismissed on merit. Appellant unsuccessfully filed writ 
petition, writ appeal and special leave petition thereafter. Even after Tribunal's 
refusal to approve the order of dismissal, respondent was neither re-instated 
in service nor was he paid wages. Aggrieved, respondent filed a writ petition E 
for re-instatement in service, for payment of wages and other consequential 
benefits which was allowed by single Judge of High Court. Hence the present 
appeal 
On behalf of appellant-Corporation it was contended that the respondent 
was not entitled as of right to claim reinstatement on the ground that the F 
application for approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act filed by the 
management had been rejected by the li'ibunal but has to approach the Tribunal 
for enforcement of his right. 
On behalf of the respondent-employee it was contended that on rejection 
of the employer's prayer for approval of the order of removal of the workman G 
the punishment order becomes void and unenforceable indeed it is nonest in 
the eye of the law; thus the High Court rightly directed reinstatement of the 
respondent with back-wages. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
499 
H 
500 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. Where the Tribunal refuses to accord approval for the 
• 
order of dismissal and rejects the application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of 
~~ 
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on merit, the employer is bound to treat 
the employee as continuing in service and give him all the consequential 
benefits. Thus, High Court was justified in issuing a direction for reinstating 
B 
the respondent and to pay him the back wages. [506-F; 507-C] 
1.2. There is no rational basis for holding that even after the order of 
dismissal or discharge has been rendered invalid on the Tribunal's rejection 
of the prayer for approval the workman should suffer the consequences of 
).:_ . 
such invalid order of dismissal or discharge till the matter is decided by the 
c Tribunal again in an industrial dispute. Accepting this contention would render 
the bar contained in Section 3J(1) irrelevant. While the employer has the 
discretion to initiate a departmental inquiry and pass an order of dismissal 
,....... 
or discharge against the workman the order remains in an inchoate state 
till the employer obtains order of approval from the Tribunal. By passing the 
order of discharge or dismissal de facto relationsf!ip of employer and 
D employee may be ended but not the de Jure relationship for that could happen 
only when the Tribunal accords its approval. The relationship of employer 
and employee is not legally terminated till approval of discharge or dismissal 
-.,.---
is given by the Tribunal. In the instant case, the Tribunal on consideration 
of the matter held that the employer had failed to establish a prima facie case 
~
E 
for dismissal/discharge of the workman, and therefore, dismissed the 
application filed by the employer on merit. The inevitable consequence of this 
would be that the employer was duty bound to treat the employee as continuing 
-
in service and pay him his wages for the period, even though he may be 
subsequently placed under suspension and enquiry initiated against him. 
[506-E-F; 507-A-B] 
F 
Strawboard Manufacturing Co. v. Gobind, (1962] Suppl. 3 SCR 618; 
Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh v. Suresh Chand and Am:, [1978] 3 
SCR 370 and Tata Iron and Steel Col Ltd. v. S.N. Modak, (1965] 3 SCR 411, 
relied on. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3593 of 
2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.2.2000 of the Madras High Court 
in W.A. No. 157 of 2000. 
......

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