In Brief
An employer sought approval to dismiss 31 workmen for vandalism of company property during pending conciliation proceedings on unrelated matters (promotion, salary payment date, drinking water, protective clothing, and permanency). The Assistant Commissioner of Labor rejected the approval, and the High Court upheld this, requiring prior written permission under Section 33(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that since the misconduct was unconnected with the pending disputes, Section 33(2)(b) applied instead, allowing dismissal upon payment of one month's salary and filing the approval application. The Court clarified the crucial distinction between Sections 33(1)(b) and 33(2)(b) based on whether the misconduct relates to the dispute.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.