Management sought writ quashal of a Tribunal order refusing approval of a workman's dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) ID Act. Court held proportionality of punishment is irrelevant in such proceedings; all three mandatory conditions were met. Petition allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:7007 WP No. 27126 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.27126 OF 2018 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
THE PRINTERS (MYSORE) PRIVATE LIMITED NO.75, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESETNED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI KARTHIK B. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.N. MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE (V.C.))
AND:
Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SRI PRAKASH .S S/O. MASTHURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.137, 2ND CROSS, SRINVIASA ROAD, T.R. NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 0028. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M.B. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.05.2018 (ANNEXURE-J) PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN SERIAL APPLICATION NO.26/2010 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FIELD BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 33(2)(b) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947, BY GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE ORDER OF TERMINATION FROM SERVICE DATED 24.06.2010.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2024:KHC:7007 WP No. 27126 of 2018
ORDER
Petitioner-management assails the order dated 25.05.2018 in Sl.Appl. No.26/2010, whereby, the application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the ID Act’ for short) seeking approval of the order of termination dated 24.06.2010 of the workman from service was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’ for short).
the material placed before it, passed an order of dismissal of the workman from service by order dated 24.06.2010. The petitioner-management sent the order of punishment dated 24.06.2010 along with the cheque of Rs.12,942/with salary particulars on the same day to the respondent and filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act seeking approval of its action imposing punishment of dismissal from service with effect from 24.06.2010.
NC: 2024:KHC:7007 WP No. 27126 of 2018
workman also raised the dispute by filing an application under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1987 r/w Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 challenging the order of dismissal before the Labour Court, the petitioner, before the Tribunal herein examined the Enquiry Officer and got marked enquiry papers at Exs.M.1 to M.19, on the other hand, workman did not examine any witness nor got marked documents on his behalf.
workman filed a memo in Sl. Application seeking closure of the matter, however, the Labour Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the application on the ground that punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct.
the scope and jurisdiction of Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act
and it is limited to the three mandatory conditions which has to be fulfilled by the management under Section
33(2)(b) of the ID Act which reads as under:
(iii) making of an application for “approval” of the action taken.
NC: 2024:KHC:7007 WP No. 27126 of 2018
workman, in the said circumstances, the order of refusal to grant permission under Section 33(2)(b) warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:
ORDER
and the application filed by the management under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act, is hereby allowed .
In view of disposal of the main petition, pending I.As
do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the same are disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
MBM
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's dismissal of the management's approval application under Section 33(2)(b), based on disproportionality of punishment, was within the limited scope of that provision?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
The Printers (Mysore) Private Limited represented by its Chief Executive Officer Sri Karthik B
Sri Prakash .S
K.S. Hemalekha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
