The Karnataka High Court has held that a workman cannot be denied back wages for the period between dismissal and reinstatement when the employer fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde delivered the judgment on August 3, 2026, in a dispute involving a KSRTC conductor. The Court clarified that while non-compliance with Section 33(2)(b) affects the operation of the dismissal order, it does not prevent a Labour Court from examining the alleged misconduct on merits.
Background of the Case
M.K. Mohammed Ismail, who was working as a conductor with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), was dismissed from service on January 27, 2007, following a disciplinary enquiry. He subsequently raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court.
The Labour Court found the domestic enquiry to be fair and held that the charges were proved. However, it set aside the dismissal because KSRTC had not obtained the approval required under Section 33(2)(b). Ismail was directed to be reinstated, but the Labour Court denied him back wages and withheld four annual increments with cumulative effect. KSRTC implemented the reinstatement order.
Ismail approached the High Court challenging the denial of back wages and the withholding of increments.
Court's Observations
The High Court examined the Constitution Bench decision in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal Sharma along with several other Supreme Court rulings.
The Court explained that Section 33(2)(b) requires an employer, during the pendency of an industrial dispute, to pay one month's wages and make an application seeking approval of the dismissal. The provision is intended to protect workers against victimisation or unfair labour practices during such proceedings.
"Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947 does not take away the employer's right to justify the action by proving the misconduct. However, the provision regulates the procedure for imposing the penalty of dismissal, after the conclusion of domestic enquiry."
The Court further clarified that the Labour Court can still examine the merits of the alleged misconduct in proceedings under Sections 10 or 33A. However, where Section 33(2)(b) has not been complied with, the dismissal cannot operate retrospectively from the original date of dismissal.
Decision
The High Court partly allowed the writ petition. It set aside the Labour Court's decision denying back wages and held that Ismail was entitled to full consequential benefits from the date of dismissal until reinstatement, treating him as being in service during that period.
However, the Court upheld the penalty of withholding four annual increments with cumulative effect, finding that the lesser penalty was not shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct in the circumstances of the case.
The respondent was granted three months to comply. In case of failure, interest at 6% per annum would apply to the amount due from the date of the Labour Court's reinstatement order.
Case Details
- Case Title: M.K. Mohammed Ismail v. The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C., Kolar Division
- Case Number: Writ Petition No. 12014 of 2013 (L-KSRTC)
- Judge: Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde
- Decision Date: August 3, 2026
