Non-Compliance With Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act entitles Workman To Back Wages: Karnataka HC

The High Court of Karnataka has held that where an employer fails to comply with Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a Labour Court or Tribunal cannot deny full back wages on reinstatement to a dismissed employee, even if charges of misconduct are subsequently held to be proved.  

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde delivered the judgment in a writ petition filed under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Bench clarified the interplay between statutory non-compliance under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the jurisdiction of Labour Courts to adjudicate misconduct on merits under Section 10 or Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 

Non-Compliance of Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act 

Evaluating the ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and Others ( "(2002) 2 SCC 244": 2002 CaseBase(SC) 1289) alongside P.H. Kalyani v. M/s. Air France, Calcutta, the Court, in its reasoning, observed: 

"In the event of non-compliance of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947, the Labour Court or the Tribunal cannot deny the back wages from the date of the penalty of dismissal till the date of the order on application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947... In a proceeding under Section 10 and Section 33A of the Act, 1947, if the penalty of dismissal is confirmed on proof of charges, and Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947 is found to be violated, the award of dismissal would not relate back to the date of original dismissal imposed by the employer in the event of non-compliance of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947." 

Background of holding Back Wages on Reinstatement 

The petitioner, a Conductor with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), was dismissed from service on January 27, 2007, following a departmental inquiry for failing to return a waybill. The workman raised an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.  

The Labour Court found that while the domestic inquiry was fair and the charges were proved, the KSRTC had committed a fatal procedural lapse by failing to seek approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. While the Labour Court ordered reinstatement on account of this statutory violation, it denied back wages and withheld four annual increments with cumulative effect on the premise that misconduct was established. 

On Holding Back Wages on Reinstatement 

Challenging the denial of back wages and increment withholding, the petitioner approached the High Court, relying heavily on Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and Others ( "(2002) 2 SCC 244": 2002 CaseBase(SC) 1289) to contend that a dismissal without Section 33(2)(b) approval is void ab initio, depriving the tribunal of jurisdiction to adjudicate merits or deny wages. KSRTC defended the award relying on decisions such as P.H. Kalyani v. M/s. Air France, Calcutta, Automobile Products of India Ltd. v. Rukmaji Bala & Ors., Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Its Workmen, Management of Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. v. S. Balakrishnan, J.H. Patel v. Nuboard Manufacturing Co. Ltd., and Managing Director, NEKRTC (Karnataka) v. Shivasharanappa, arguing that employers retain the right to justify dismissals on merits in Section 10/33A proceedings. 

The High Court analyzed a spectrum of precedents including Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Gobind, Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh v. Suresh Chand & Anr. ( "(1978) 2 SCC 144": 1978 CaseBase(SC) 7), Engineering Laghu Udyog Employees' Union v. Judge, Labour Court & Industrial Tribunal & Anr. ( "(2003) 12 SCC 1": 2003 CaseBase(SC) 552), Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. S.N. Modak, Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. D.R. Singh ( "AIR 1966 SC 288": 1965 CaseBase(SC) 94), Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha ( "(1980) 2 SCC 593": 1978 CaseBase(SC) 268), Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. v. Motipur Sugar Factory ( "AIR 1965 SC 1803": 1965 CaseBase(SC) 103), M/s. G. Mckenzie and Co. Ltd., Vs. Its Workmen and others, The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Management & Others, R. Thiruvirkolam v. Presiding Officer and another ( "(1997) 1 SCC 9": 1996 CaseBase(SC) 1276), Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Limited v. Kala Singh, Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by LRs., State of U.P. & another v. Synthetic and Chemicals Ltd and another ( "(1991) 4 SCC 139": 1991 CaseBase(SC) 99), Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagadeeshan ( "(2002) 2 SCC 420": 2002 CaseBase(SC) 862), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Satyaprakash and another, Babu Verghese and others v. Bar Council of Kerala and others ( "(1999) 3 SCC 422": 1999 CaseBase(SC) 1070), and Section 6-E(2)(b) of the United Provinces Industrial Disputes Act, UP Act, 1947. The High Court partially allowed the petition, setting aside the denial of back wages while sustaining the lesser punishment of withholding four increments. 

Case Details: 

Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO.12014 OF 2013 (L-KSRTC) 

Case Title: M.K. MOHAMMED ISMAIL v. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C., KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR 

Appearances: 

For the Petitioner(s): Sri. V.R. Dotar, Advocate for Sri. L. Shekar, Advocate (supported by Sri. V.S. Naik, Sri. V.R. Datar and Sri. Narayan Swamy) 

For the Respondent(s): Sri. B.K. Prashanth representing Smt. H.R. Renuka, Advocate 

Source: 2026 CaseBase(KAR) 6561