The Bombay High Court has held that a technical shortfall in payment of one month's wages under the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, cannot be used as a shield by an employee found guilty of grave misconduct such as corruption and forgery. The Court observed that the protection under Section 33(2)(b) is intended to soften the rigours of dismissal and not to create technical grounds for reinstating employees whose serious misconduct stands proved.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne was hearing a writ petition filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai challenging the orders of the Industrial Tribunal rejecting its application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking approval of the respondent's removal from service. The respondent, a Clerk in the Octroi Department, had been found guilty in a departmental enquiry of conspiring with others to divert an octroi refund cheque of Rs.4,10,885/- to a third-party bank account and receiving Rs.1,50,000/- from the fraudulently withdrawn amount. Although the Industrial Tribunal upheld the fairness of the enquiry and the findings of guilt, it refused approval to the dismissal on the ground that there was non-compliance with Section 33(2)(b) due to deductions made while paying one month's wages.

The Municipal Corporation contended that apart from the salary for November 2006, it had separately offered Rs.14,468/- as one month's wages, initially at the workplace and thereafter through a money order, while simultaneously filing the approval application.

The Court held that the Industrial Tribunal had completely misdirected itself by examining the salary paid for November 2006 instead of the separate payment of Rs.14,468/- made towards compliance with Section 33(2)(b). The Court further found that the Corporation had specifically pleaded and led evidence regarding the payment of Rs.14,468/- through money order, which the respondent had not effectively disputed. The Tribunal had ignored this material evidence while rejecting the approval application.

The Court further observed that even assuming there had been a minor deficit in the amount paid, such technical shortfall could not automatically result in refusal of approval where the employee had been found guilty of grave misconduct involving corruption.

“… even if the Respondent was successful in establishing that there was some deduction made, the same cannot ipso facto be the reason for granting any relief to him when he is found guilty of serious misconduct of forgery and corruption,” the Court observed.

The Court also held that the dispute regarding the release of the increment was independent of compliance with Section 33(2)(b) and could not invalidate the dismissal proceedings.

Holding that the Industrial Tribunal had adopted a hyper-technical approach despite affirming the respondent's guilt for serious acts of corruption and forgery, the Court set aside the orders rejecting the approval application and the review application.

Case Title: Dr. Satish Bhide, for and on behalf of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ravindra M. Pande [Writ Petition No. 10116 of 2015]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 318

Click Here To Read/Download Order