SRI DORAIRAJ SPINTEX versus R CHITTIBABU & ORS

Citation: [2021] 12 S.C.R. 475 · Decided: 22-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
475
   [2021] 12 S.C.R. 475
475
SRI DORAIRAJ SPINTEX
v.
R CHITTIBABU & ORS
(Civil Appeal No 5897 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 22, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, VIKRAM NATH
AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: s.33: Dismissal of workmen
during pendency of Conciliation Proceedings – On 4 July 2002,
workmen raised industrial dispute under s.2(k) – Dispute was taken
into conciliation and proceedings were pending – Thereafter,
workmen commenced a stay-in strike on 31 July 2002 – On 1 August
2002, another dispute raised by the workmen which was also taken
into conciliation – Appellant-management initially suspended few
workmen – Thereafter, domestic enquiry was commenced which
resulted into dismissal of workmen – Following the order of dismissal,
management filed an application for approval of its action of
dismissal before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour under
s.33(2)(b) of the ID Act – The Assistant Commissioner rejected the
application for approval of dismissal on the ground that a prior
approval was necessary under s.33(1)(b) before the termination
and that the action of management in taking steps in pursuance of
s.33(2)(b) was unlawful – High Court upheld the said order – On
appeal, held: s.33 imposes a ban on the employer discharging,
dismissing or punishing a workman during the pendency of
conciliation proceedings and other specified authorities – However,
s.33(1)(b) provides that employer may dismiss workmen with the
express permission in writing of the authority before which the
proceeding is pending in regard to “any matter connected with the
dispute” – s.33(2)(b) deals with the power of employer to dismiss
workmen in regard to “matter which is not connected with the
dispute” – In the instant case, in the first conciliation proceeding,
the demand of workmen was for promotional avenues, the payment
of monthly salary before the seventh day of each month, drinking
water and protective clothing – In the second conciliation
proceedings, the workmen had claimed the status of permanency –
The disciplinary enquiry was held in respect of the acts of misconduct
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
476
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
alleged to have been committed by the workmen involving the
property of the employer – These dismissal for misconduct cannot
be regarded as being connected to the dispute which was raised in
conciliation – Hence, the provisions of s.33(2)(b) of the ID Act would
stand attracted – In this view of the matter, the order of the Assistant
Commissioner was contrary to law.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1  The basic premise underlying Section 33(1) is
that during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings before
a Conciliation Officer or a Board or of any proceeding before an
arbitrator or a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in
respect of an industrial dispute, an employer is prohibited from
(a) altering the conditions of service of the workmen; or (b)
dismissing, discharging or punishing the workmen in respect of
any matter or misconduct connected with the dispute save with
the express permission in writing of the authority before which
the proceeding is pending. Both in the context of clause (a) as
well as clause (b) of sub-Section (1), the crucial words are
“connected with the dispute”. Clause (a) of sub-Section (1) deals
with an alteration of the conditions of service in regard to any
matter connected with the dispute. Clause (b) deals with discharge
or punishment, whether by way of dismissal or otherwise, of a
workman for any misconduct connected with the dispute. Where
the connection with the dispute exists, Section 33(1) requires
the prior permission in writing of the authority before whom a
proceeding is pending. [Para 9][482-H; 483-A-C]
1.2 On the other hand, Section 33(2) applies to (i) an
alteration of the conditions of service in regard to a matter not
connected with the dispute; or (ii) the discharge or punishment,
whether by way of dismissal or otherwise, of a workman for
misconduct which is not connected with the dispute. The
distinction between sub-Section (1) and sub-Section (2) lies in
whether the action which is proposed by the employer during the
pendency of a conciliation proceeding is or is not connected with
the dispute. Whether the action is connected to the dispute has
to be determined on the basis of the facts of each case. [Para 10]
[483-D-E]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
477
2. When the ID Act was enacted, Section 33 imposed a ban
on the

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