PUNJAB BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH versus SURESH CHAND AND ANR.

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 370 · Decided: 21-02-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
370 
PUNJAB BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH 
v. ' 
SURESH CHAND AND ANR. 
February 21, 1978 
[M. H. BEG, C.J., P. N. BHAGWATI & D. A. DESAI, JJ.J 
Industrlal Disputes Act, 1947-Section 33(c)(2)-Mainttdnability of an 
application under s.33 c (2)-Nature of Proceedings under Section 33(c)(2). 
Industrial Disputes Act, (No. XIV of 1947), 1947 Section 33-0bject of-
Scope of the inquiry before the Tribunal exercising jurisdiction under Section 
33. 
Co~truction of a. statute-Construction should be with reference to the 
context and other provisions of statute-Construction of S. 33 of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947. 
• 
'\ 
~ 
I 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 33A-Scope of the inquiry effect of 
r 
S. 33 on the interpretation of S. 33. 
Industrial Disputes Act. (No. XIV of 1947), 1947-Sections 31, 33(2) (b), 
33A, 33C(2), Scope of-Effect of contravention of Section 33 (2)(b) on an 
order of dismissal passed by an ernployer in breach of it-Whether it renders 
the order of lfismissal void and inoperative. 
Respondent No. I in (C.A. 1375 of 1977) was a workman employed as an 
operator in the Undertaking of the appellant from Ist March, 1970 and was in 
receipt of Rs. 1001- per month as salary, which would have been raised to 
Rs. il5/- per month from Ist October, 1972, if he had continued in service 
\Vith the appellant. 
But on 21st December, 1971 the 1st Respondent was sus-
pended by the appellant and a Charge-sheet was served upon him and before 
any inquiry on the basis of this Charge-sheet could be held another Charge-
sheet was given to him on 17th April, 1973. This was followed by a regular 
in9uiry and ultimately the appellant, finding the 1st Respondent 
guilty, 
dis-
missed him from service by an order dated 23rd December, 1974. Since, an 
Industrial Dispute was pending at the time when the Jst Respondent \\'as dis-
missed from service in view of the provisions contained in S. 
33(2)(b) 
of 
tho Industrial Disputes Act, the appellant immediately approached Industrial 
Tribunal at Chandigarh before which the Industrial dispute was pending for 
approval of the action taken by it. The appellant, however, withdrew that 
application and the Industrial Tribunal, thereupon, made an order on 4th 
September 1976 dismissing the application as withdrawa The 1st Respondent 
then demanded from the appeUant full wages from the date of his suspension 
till the date of demand, contending that as the action of the appellant dismissing 
him was not approved by the Industrial Tribunal, he continued to be in ser-
vice and was entitled to all the emoluments. The appellant did not res-
pond to this demand of the Ist Respondent. whereupon, the latter made an 
application to the Labour Court under S. 33-C(2) for dctefmiitation aod 
payment of the amount of wages due to him from the date of suspension on 
the gronnd that the appellant not having obtained the approval of the Indust-
rial Tribunal to the dismissal under s. 33(2)(b) the Order of dismissal was 
void and the 1st Respondent continued to be in service and was entitled to 
receive his wages from the appellant. The appellant resisted this application 
under S. 33-C(2) inter alia on the ground that the application under S. 33(2) 
(b) having been withdrawn the position was as if no application had been 
made at all, with the result that there was contravention of S. 3312)(b) but 
such contravention did not render the order of dismissal void ab inltio and it 
was nterely illegal and unl.ess it was set aside in an appropriate proceeding 
1aken by the 1st Respdt. under S. 33-A or a reference unJer S. 10, the Labour 
T 
./ 
) 
• 
• 1 
. . '-
• 
,PUNJAB BEVERAGES V. SURESH CHAND 
371 
Court had no jurisdiction under S. 33-C(2) to direct payn1en~· of 'vage:; :to ~he 
lst Respondent on the basis that he continued in service and the apphcauon 
.made by the Ist Respondent accordingly was incompetent. 
A 
The Labour Court rejected the contention of the appellant and held that 
since refcrer.ce in regard to non industrial dispute between the appell;int_ and 
the workman was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, it \Vas not competent 
to the appellant to pass an order of dismissal against the lst Respondent, un-
less the action so taken was approved by the Industrial Tribunal· under s. 33 
B 
(2)(b) and consequently the appellant having withdrawn the application for 
approval under S. 33(2) (b) antl the approval of the Industrial .Tribunal to 
the order of dism

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