Zila Sanhakjari Bhoomi Vikasw Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma  INSC 320 (18 August 1993)
P.B. Sawant, P.B. Yogeshwar Dayal (J)
1994 SCC (6) 522 1993 SCALE (4)693
questions which fall for consideration in the present appeals are as follows:
What is the status of the order of dismissal and therefore of the dismissed
employee between the date of the order of dismissal and the approval of
dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Does the employee become entitled to being treated as never to have been
dismissed from service if the application filed by the employer under Section
33(2)(b) is not approved?
the requirement of the approval under Section 33(2)(b) a mere technicality the
non-compliance of which does not vitiate the order or is it a condition
precedent to the order being rendered valid?
Does the order of dismissal remain inchoate and is not effective till it is
approved under Section 33(2)(b)?
have heard learned counsel on both sides at considerable length. Various
decisions were cited before us and we find that two Benches consisting of three
learned Judges have taken the view that if the approval is not granted under
Section 33(2)(b), the order of dismissal becomes ineffective from the date it
was passed and, therefore, the employee becomes entitled to wages from the date
of dismissal to the date of disapproval of the application. The decisions in
which this view has been taken are Strawboard Manufacturing Co. v. Gobind1 and Tata
Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. S.N. Modak2.
against this, another Bench of three learned Judges in Punjab Beverages (P)
Ltd., Chandigarh v. Suresh Chand3 has taken the view
that the non-approval of the order of dismissal or failure to make application
under Section 33(2)(b) would not render the order of dismissal inoperative. The
failure to apply for approval under Section 33(2)(b) would only render the
employer liable to punishment under Section 31 of the Act and the remedy of the
employee is either by way of a complaint under Section 33-A or by way of a
reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the Act.
is no reference in this decision to the earlier two decisions of the Court
Recently, a Bench of two Judges, in a decision in S. Ganapathy v. Air India4
has followed the view taken by this Court in Strawboard Manufacturing Co. case1
and Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. case2 and has held that the order of
dismissal passed without the approval under Section 33(2)(b) remains in
inchoate condition. This decision has in true not noticed the decision in
Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd. case3.
point arises in a number of cases and in view of the conflicting decisions,
presents difficulty to all the courts. It is therefore, necessary that the law
on the subject is settled for future. We are, therefore, constrained to direct
the Registry to place this matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for
referring the same to a Bench of five Judges since the decisions in which the
conflict arises, are all pronounced by a Bench of three learned Judges. The
order of the dismissal in the present case is of 1974. At the request of the
parties, we give liberty to them to approach Hon'ble the Chief Justice to
constitute the Bench at his early convenience.