Introduction:

The Bombay High Court, in Dr. Satish Bhide, for and on behalf of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ravindra M. Pande [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 318], delivered an important ruling on the interpretation of the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that a technical or marginal shortfall in the payment of one month’s wages cannot become a ground to protect an employee whose guilt for serious misconduct such as corruption and forgery has already been established in a valid departmental enquiry. The Court emphasized that Section 33(2)(b) is intended to provide procedural protection to employees during the pendency of industrial disputes, but it cannot be interpreted in a manner that frustrates disciplinary action against employees found guilty of grave misconduct.

The case arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai against a clerk working in its Octroi Department. During the departmental enquiry, the employee was found guilty of participating in a fraudulent scheme involving diversion of an octroi refund cheque worth ₹4,10,885 to a third-party bank account and receiving ₹1,50,000 from the illegally withdrawn amount. After the enquiry established the charges, the Corporation dismissed the employee from service and simultaneously filed an application before the Industrial Tribunal seeking approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Although the Tribunal upheld the fairness of the enquiry and accepted that the charges of corruption and forgery were proved, it rejected the Corporation’s approval application on the ground that there had been non-compliance with the requirement of paying one month’s wages. Aggrieved by this decision, the Municipal Corporation approached the Bombay High Court through a writ petition.

Arguments of the Parties:

The Municipal Corporation argued that it had fully complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 33(2)(b). It submitted that apart from paying the employee’s salary for November 2006, it had separately offered a sum of ₹14,468 towards one month’s wages. When the employee did not accept the amount, it was sent through a money order while the approval application was filed before the Industrial Tribunal. According to the Corporation, the Tribunal wrongly examined deductions made in the monthly salary instead of considering the independent payment made specifically to satisfy the statutory requirement.

The Corporation further contended that the Tribunal ignored documentary evidence and pleadings showing compliance with the provision. It argued that even if there had been a minor shortfall in the amount paid, such a technical defect should not outweigh the established findings of corruption and forgery against the employee.

The respondent employee supported the Tribunal’s decision, contending that Section 33(2)(b) required strict compliance and that any deficiency in payment of one month’s wages rendered the dismissal legally invalid. It was also argued that deductions made from the salary indicated that the statutory condition had not been fulfilled. Therefore, according to the respondent, the Corporation was not entitled to approval of the dismissal order.

Court’s Judgment:

The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders of the Industrial Tribunal rejecting the approval application and the subsequent review application.

The Court observed that the Tribunal had adopted an erroneous and hyper-technical approach. Instead of examining the separate payment of ₹14,468 made specifically towards compliance with Section 33(2)(b), the Tribunal focused only on the salary paid for November 2006. The Court noted that the Corporation had clearly pleaded and produced evidence showing that the required amount had first been offered to the employee and later sent through a money order. The respondent had failed to effectively dispute this evidence.

Justice Marne further held that even assuming there had been a minor deficit in the payment, such a technical shortfall could not automatically invalidate the dismissal when the employee had been found guilty of serious misconduct involving corruption and forgery. The purpose of Section 33(2)(b) is to soften the consequences of dismissal by ensuring immediate financial support to the employee, not to provide a technical defence enabling guilty employees to escape disciplinary action.

The Court also clarified that any dispute regarding release of increments or calculation of salary was separate from the statutory requirement under Section 33(2)(b) and could not be used to invalidate the dismissal proceedings. Since the departmental enquiry had been held to be fair and the findings of guilt were not disturbed, there was no justification for refusing approval merely on a technical ground.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Tribunal’s orders, and granted approval to the dismissal. The judgment reiterates that labour law protections should not be interpreted so mechanically that they defeat accountability in cases involving proven acts of corruption, forgery, and serious misconduct.