Industrial Dispute Deemed 'Pending' U/S Till 30 Days Post-Award; S.33(2)(B) Approval Mandatory: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that an industrial dispute is deemed to remain “pending” under Section 20(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act until 30 days after publication of the award, even if the dispute is factually settled. The Court clarified that during this statutory period, compliance with Section 33(2)(b) is mandatory for dismissal of a workman.

Justice Amit Borkar was hearing cross writ petitions arising from an award of the Industrial Court concerning the dismissal of a workman during the pendency of industrial references. The employer contended that since the dispute had already been settled and references withdrawn, Section 33(2)(b) approval was not required.

The Court examined Section 33 and noted that it has been enacted with the intention to preserve industrial peace during a time when conciliation proceedings or adjudication proceedings are pending before a competent authority; it is a statutory device for maintaining fairness, and keeps pending proceedings free from coercion. It observed:

“Where Legislature has used defined expressions regarding pendency and conclusion of proceedings, Court must first examine statutory language, scheme and binding precedent. Therefore, contention cannot be accepted merely because it appears pragmatic.”

The Court further observed that proceedings are deemed to continue until the award becomes enforceable, i.e., after expiry of 30 days from publication, and this statutory deeming fiction cannot be curtailed merely because parties consider the dispute to be settled.

On this basis, the Court held that on the date of dismissal, the industrial dispute was legally “pending,” and therefore the employer was bound to comply with the proviso to Section 33(2)(b), including seeking approval from the competent authority. Therefore, where an award recording settlement, disposal or other closure has been made, legal pendency under Section 20(3) does not vanish because parties may feel that the dispute has ended.

The Court held that dismissal without obtaining approval remains inchoate and does not attain legal effect. It observed that in the absence of such approval, the termination is non est in law and the workman is deemed to have continued in service.

Applying these principles, the Court upheld the finding that termination was in breach of Section 33(2)(b), set aside the denial of reinstatement, and held that reinstatement with continuity of service must follow as a consequence of the invalid dismissal.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the employer's writ petition, partly allowed the workman's petition, declared the dismissal inoperative, and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and partial back wages.

Case Title: Santosh Chandrkant Potdar vs. Bajaj Auto Limited [Writ Petition No.15252 of 2024]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 233

Click Here To Read/Download Order