The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified a critical boundary in labor jurisprudence: termination of service cannot be deemed a violation of Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act merely because it occurs after a dispute is filed, if the decision to terminate was made and communicated prior to the initiation of proceedings. This ruling redefines the temporal threshold for invoking penal provisions against employers in industrial disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellants, including Sandeep Tiwari and other daily wage workers, were engaged as Data Entry Operators at Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, a Central University, from 2015 onwards. They were paid directly by the University, not through any outsourced agency, and were members of the registered Vishwavidyalaya Kamgar Union. The Union filed a dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 11.10.2017, seeking regularization and challenging the discontinuation of their services.
Procedural History
- 2015: Appellants appointed as Data Entry Operators on fixed monthly payments, treated as daily wagers.
- 19.01.2017: Note sheet approved engagement of three workers, including Sandeep Tiwari, for 89 days.
- 20.09.2017: University issued internal directive to all Heads of Department to cease engagement of outsourced employees after 29.08.2017.
- 11.10.2017: Union filed dispute before Assistant Labour Commissioner (ALC).
- 17.10.2017: ALC issued notice to University.
- 25.10.2017: University issued formal letter to departments reiterating non-extension of contracts.
- 09.11.2022: Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) held that termination on 25.10.2017 violated Section 33A as it occurred after dispute initiation.
- 10.10.2023: High Court set aside CGIT’s order, holding termination decision predated the dispute.
- 23.01.2026: Writ Appeals filed before Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought reinstatement, regularization, and prosecution of the University Registrar under Section 33A for unlawful termination during pendency of dispute. They contended that the 25.10.2017 letter constituted the actual termination act.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is triggered when an employer’s decision to terminate services is made and communicated before the filing of an industrial dispute, but the formal notice of termination is issued afterward.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The appellants, represented by Senior Advocate Brian D’Silva, argued that the 25.10.2017 letter was the operative act of termination, occurring after the dispute was formally initiated on 11.10.2017 and notice issued on 17.10.2017. They relied on State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das and Workmen of Mysore Paper Mills v. Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. to assert that any action affecting employment during pendency of dispute, even if pre-planned, constitutes a violation of Section 33A. They emphasized that the University failed to prove the appellants were outsourced employees, making their engagement de facto permanent.
For the Respondent/State
Ms. Shobha Menon, Senior Advocate for the University, contended that the decision to discontinue outsourced employees was taken on 20.09.2017, well before the dispute was filed. The 25.10.2017 letter was merely a restatement of a pre-existing policy decision. She cited Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India to argue that Section 33A applies only to actions taken after dispute initiation, not to decisions made in good faith prior to it. The University produced documentary evidence (Annexure P-2 and P-3) showing the workers were hired on fixed-term, non-sanctioned posts.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous temporal and doctrinal analysis of Section 33A, which prohibits employers from altering employment conditions or terminating workers during the pendency of an industrial dispute. The Court distinguished between a decision to terminate and the act of termination. It held that the critical inquiry is not when the notice is issued, but when the decision to terminate becomes effective and irreversible.
"The letter dated 20.09.2017 was the decisive act which fixed the last date of engagement as 29.08.2017. The letter dated 25.10.2017 was merely an administrative reminder, not a new termination order."
The Court noted that the Union’s application under Section 10 was filed on 11.10.2017, after the cutoff date of 29.08.2017 had already passed. Therefore, no employment relationship existed on the date the dispute was initiated. The Court further observed that the CGIT erred in assuming the appellants were permanent employees, when the University’s internal documents consistently treated them as hired employees on fixed-term contracts. The absence of a sanctioned post and the nature of payment confirmed their temporary status.
The Court also emphasized that Section 33A is not a blanket shield against all adverse actions during dispute pendency, but a safeguard against retaliatory or coercive conduct occurring after the dispute is formally raised. Since the decision to discontinue was made and communicated before the dispute, the provision did not apply.
The Verdict
The appellants’ writ appeals were dismissed. The Court held that Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act does not apply when the decision to terminate employment is made and communicated prior to the initiation of an industrial dispute, even if formal notice follows later. The CGIT’s order was set aside, and the High Court’s earlier judgment was upheld.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Decision Date, Not Notice Date, Determines Violation
- Practitioners must now establish the date of decision to terminate, not merely the date of notice, to determine applicability of Section 33A.
- Employers should maintain contemporaneous documentation (memos, circulars, meeting minutes) proving pre-dispute termination decisions.
- Labor tribunals must examine internal communications to ascertain whether termination was a reactive act or a pre-existing policy.
Outsourced Status Must Be Proven Through Documentation
- Merely paying workers directly does not equate to permanent employment; the nature of engagement must be proven via appointment letters, note sheets, and budgetary approvals.
- Union claims of regularization must be weighed against documentary evidence of contractual terms.
- Absence of sanctioned posts and fixed-term hiring patterns strongly rebut claims of de facto permanency.
Procedural Compliance Trumps Alleged Inequity
- Even if termination appears harsh or inequitable, Section 33A is not a tool for regularization - it is a procedural safeguard.
- Courts will not substitute their judgment for that of the Industrial Tribunal on factual matters like employment status; they will only review legal application of Section 33A.
- Parties must ensure all relevant documents (including those not filed in lower courts) are produced before the High Court to avoid adverse inferences.
