#Section 33(2)(b)

Even though the employer failed to obtain prior approval under Sec 33(2)(b) before dismissing the employee, the High Court ruled that the workman remains entitled to back wages and that the Labour Court retains jurisdiction to assess misconduct. This protects dismissed workers from losing monetary relief due to procedural lapses by the employer.

Bombay High Court clarifies that wages under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act must be paid as an additional amount, not adjusted against salary, for dismissal approval. The ruling emphasizes that minor procedural deficits should not override approval for grave misconduct like corruption, ensuring employers comply strictly with payment obligations.

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that when an employer seeks approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act to dismiss a workman, the Labour Commissioner’s role is strictly limited to verifying procedural compliance - not evaluating whether the domestic inquiry was fair or justified. This decision reinforces that substantive fairness must be determined by industrial tribunals, not administrative officers, protecting employers from premature merit-based interference and clarifying jurisdictional boundaries in labour disputes.

Bombay High Court rules that termination of an employee during a pending industrial reference without prior approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act is void ab initio. The court mandates reinstatement with back wages, calculated in tranches based on actual earnings, unless exceptional grounds are proven by the employer.

Delhi HC rules that approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act for dismissal without inquiry does not preclude a later challenge on the merits. Reinstatement with full back wages was ordered as the approval proceedings lacked evidence, and res judicata was held inapplicable to such approvals.