The Bombay High Court has ruled that a technical dispute over the payment of one month's wages under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot, by itself, invalidate disciplinary action when serious misconduct has already been established through a fair departmental inquiry. The Court set aside the Industrial Tribunal's decision that had refused to approve the employee's removal from service after finding a defect in compliance with the statutory provision.
Background of the Case
The case arose after the Municipal Corporation removed one of its employees from service following a departmental inquiry. The inquiry concluded that the departmental enquiry found the employee guilty of serious misconduct relating to the diversion of an octroi refund amount and had acted in collusion with others. The Industrial Tribunal accepted that the inquiry was fair and that the findings of guilt were not perverse.
However, while considering the employer's application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, the Tribunal declined to approve the dismissal. It held that deductions made from the employee's salary and the alleged non-payment of certain amounts meant that the statutory requirement of paying one month's wages had not been fulfilled. As a result, the Tribunal refused approval to the removal order.
Court's Observations
Justice Sandeep V. Marne found that the Industrial Tribunal had committed a fundamental error by treating the employee's regular salary for November 2006 as the statutory one month's wages required under Section 33(2)(b).
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
The Court noted that the monthly salary earned while the employee remained in service was separate from the additional one month's wages that an employer must pay when seeking approval of dismissal during the pendency of an industrial dispute.
The judgment recorded that the Municipal Corporation had specifically pleaded and produced evidence showing that an additional amount of ₹14,468 had been sent to the employee through a money order as one month's wages. The employee had not specifically denied this fact before the Tribunal, yet the Tribunal completely overlooked this evidence.
"The Industrial Tribunal has completely misdirected itself in examining compliance with the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act," the Court observed.
The High Court further observed that if there had been any minor deficiency in the amount paid, the proper course would have been to direct the employer to deposit the balance amount instead of rejecting the dismissal altogether.
It also cautioned against adopting an excessively technical approach where serious misconduct has already been proved through a valid disciplinary process.
"The provision is not aimed at creating technical grounds for setting aside removal or dismissal in respect of employees who are found to have indulged in grave misconduct," the bench observed.
Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court set aside both the Industrial Tribunal's order dated 7 May 2010 and its subsequent order rejecting the review application.
The Court approved the Municipal Corporation's action removing the employee from service under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, thereby restoring the dismissal order.
Case Details
Case Title: Dr. Satish Bhide, for and on behalf of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ravindra M. Pande
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 10116 of 2015
Judge: Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Decision Date: 7 July 2026
