SRI DORAIRAJ SPINTEXversusR CHITTIBABU & ORS

                          [2021] 12 S.C.R. 475                           475


                    SRI DORAIRAJ SPINTEX                                 A
                                  v.
                     R CHITTIBABU & ORS
                   (Civil Appeal No 5897 of 2021)
                       SEPTEMBER 22, 2021                                B
 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, VIKRAM NATH
           AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
       Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: s.33: Dismissal of workmen
during pendency of Conciliation Proceedings – On 4 July 2002,
                                                                         C
workmen raised industrial dispute under s.2(k) – Dispute was taken
into conciliation and proceedings were pending – Thereafter,
workmen commenced a stay-in strike on 31 July 2002 – On 1 August
2002, another dispute raised by the workmen which was also taken
into conciliation – Appellant-management initially suspended few
workmen – Thereafter, domestic enquiry was commenced which               D
resulted into dismissal of workmen – Following the order of dismissal,
management filed an application for approval of its action of
dismissal before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour under
s.33(2)(b) of the ID Act – The Assistant Commissioner rejected the
application for approval of dismissal on the ground that a prior
                                                                         E
approval was necessary under s.33(1)(b) before the termination
and that the action of management in taking steps in pursuance of
s.33(2)(b) was unlawful – High Court upheld the said order – On
appeal, held: s.33 imposes a ban on the employer discharging,
dismissing or punishing a workman during the pendency of
conciliation proceedings and other specified authorities – However,      F
s.33(1)(b) provides that employer may dismiss workmen with the
express permission in writing of the authority before which the
proceeding is pending in regard to “any matter connected with the
dispute” – s.33(2)(b) deals with the power of employer to dismiss
workmen in regard to “matter which is not connected with the
                                                                         G
dispute” – In the instant case, in the first conciliation proceeding,
the demand of workmen was for promotional avenues, the payment
of monthly salary before the seventh day of each month, drinking
water and protective clothing – In the second conciliation
proceedings, the workmen had claimed the status of permanency –
The disciplinary enquiry was held in respect of the acts of misconduct   H
                                 475
476            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2021] 12 S.C.R.


A     alleged to have been committed by the workmen involving the
      property of the employer – These dismissal for misconduct cannot
      be regarded as being connected to the dispute which was raised in
      conciliation – Hence, the provisions of s.33(2)(b) of the ID Act would
      stand attracted – In this view of the matter, the order of the Assistant
      Commissioner was contrary to law.
B
            Disposing of the appeal, the Court
            HELD : 1.1 The basic premise underlying Section 33(1) is
      that during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings before
      a Conciliation Officer or a Board or of any proceeding before an
C     arbitrator or a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in
      respect of an industrial dispute, an employer is prohibited from
      (a) altering the conditions of service of the workmen; or (b)
      dismissing, discharging or punishing the workmen in respect of
      any matter or misconduct connected with the dispute save with
      the express permission in writing of the authority before which
D     the proceeding is pending. Both in the context of clause (a) as
      well as clause (b) of sub-Section (1), the crucial words are
      “connected with the dispute”. Clause (a) of sub-Section (1) deals
      with an alteration of the conditions of service in regard to any
      matter connected with the dispute. Clause (b) deals with discharge
E     or punishment, whether by way of dismissal or otherwise, of a
      workman for any misconduct connected with the dispute. Where
      the connection with the dispute exists, Section 33(1) requires
      the prior permission in writing of the authority before whom a
      proceeding is pending. [Para 9][482-H; 483-A-C]

F           1.2 On the other hand, Section 33(2) applies to (i) an
      alteration of the conditions of service in regard to a matter not
      connected with the dispute; or (ii) the discharge or punishment,
      whether by way of dismissal or otherwise, of a workman for
      misconduct which is not connected with the dispute. The
      distinction between sub-Section (1) and sub-Section (2) lies in
G     whether the action which is proposed by the employer during the
      pendency of a conciliation proceeding is or is not connected with
      the dispute. Whether the action is connected to the dispute has
      to be determined on the basis of the facts of each case. [Para 10]
      [483-D-E]
H
     SRI DORAIRAJ SPINTEX v. R CHITTIBABU & ORS                      477


      2. When the ID Act was enacted, Section 33 imposed a ban       A
on the employer discharging, dismissing or punishing a workman
during the pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal and other
specified authorities “except for misconduct not connected with
the dispute”. By Amending Act 48 of 1950, Section 33 was
substituted and a complete ban was imposed against discharge,
                                                                     B
dismissal or punishment of a workman during the pendency of
proceedings before the Court and other specified authorities.
The right of the employer to take action even for misconduct
was withdrawn. Parliament being conscious of the need for
discipline in industry amended the provision by substituting
Section 33 by Act 36 of 1956 so as to restore to the employer the    C
right to take punitive action in specified conditions. Where the
termination for misconduct is not connected to the industrial
dispute, Section 33(2)(b) recognizes the authority of the employer
to initiate disciplinary action while at the same time imposing
safeguards. They are intended to balance the disciplinary
                                                                     D
jurisdiction of the employer with the need to ensure that there is
no victimization of the workmen. [Para 11][483-E-G; 485-B]
      3. In the present case, the order of the Assistant
Commissioner of Labour takes note of the fact that initially a
dispute was raised on 4 July 2002 by the workmen under Section
2(k) The demand was received in the office of the Conciliation       E
Officer and conciliation proceedings were in progress. The Union
commenced a stay-in strike. Another dispute was raised on 1
August 2002 for the grant of permanency to the workmen in the
factory and the conciliation proceedings were initiated on the
demand. The management convened the disciplinary proceeding          F
on the ground that the workmen had indulged in acts of vandalism
involving the property of the employer. The misconduct for which
the enquiry was convened had no connect with the demands by
the workmen. In the first of the two conciliation proceedings, the
demand of the workmen was for promotional avenues, the
payment of monthly salary before the seventh day of each month,      G
drinking water and protective clothing. In the second conciliation
proceedings, the workmen had claimed the status of permanency.
The disciplinary enquiry was held in respect of the acts of
misconduct alleged to have been committed by the workmen
                                                                     H
478            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2021] 12 S.C.R.


A     involving the property of the employer. These dismissal for
      misconduct cannot be regarded as being connected to the dispute
      which was raised in conciliation, as noted above. The Assistant
      Commissioner came to the conclusion that the enquiry was
      conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and
      entered a finding of fact that there was no evidence to indicate
B
      that some of the workmen were protected workmen. The
      Assistant Commissioner also held that on 2 August 2002, a law
      and order problem had arisen as a result of which the management
      had initiated disciplinary proceedings. Nonetheless, the Assistant
      Commissioner of Labour came to the conclusion that once
C     conciliation proceedings were initiated, prior approval under
      Section 33(1)(b) was necessary and this finding has been
      confirmed both by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of
      the High Court. In entering this finding, all the three fora have
      clearly lost sight of the distinction between sub-Section (1) and
      sub-Section (2) of Section 33 of the ID Act. The Single Judge
D
      noticed that the dismissal was for some other reason, yet held
      that Section 33 (1)(b) was attracted. There has been no
      independent application of mind by the Division Bench at all. Once
      it is held that the action of dismissal for misconduct was not
      connected with the dispute which was pending in conciliation,
E     the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act would stand
      attracted. There is no dispute about the fact that there was
      compliance of the provisions of Section 33(2)(b), nor is there a
      finding to the contrary. In this view of the matter, the order of the
      Assistant Commissioner was contrary to law and there was an
      error on the part of the Single Judge and the Division Bench in
F
      affirming the order. [Paras 12, 13, 14][485-C-G; 486-A-G]
            Strawboard Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. Govind
            [1962] Supp 3 SCR 618, Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi
            Vikas Bank Ltd v. Ram Gopal Sharma and Ors. AIR
            2002 SC 643 : [2002] 1 SCR 284. Chartered Bank,
G           Bombay v. Chartered Bank Employees’ Union [1960] 3
            SCR 441; Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd v. Workmen [1964] 7
            SCR 555; PD Sharma v. State Bank of India [1968] 3
            SCR 91; Air India Corporation v. Rebellow (1972) 1
            SCC 814 : [1972] 3 SCR 606; Workmen of Sudder
H
         SRI DORAIRAJ SPINTEX v. R CHITTIBABU & ORS                        479


         Office, Cinnamara v. Management of Sudder Office                  A
         (1972) 4 SCC 746; Mahendra Singh Dhantwal v.
         Hindustan Motors Ltd. (1976) 4 SCC 606 : [1976]
         Suppl. SCR 635 – referred to.
                         Case Law Reference
[1962] Supp 3 SCR 618             referred to             Para 11          B

[2002] 1 SCR 284                  referred to             Para 11
[1960] 3 SCR 441                  referred to             Para 11
[1964] 7 SCR 555                  referred to             Para 11
                                                                           C
[1968] 3 SCR 91                   referred to             Para 11
[1972] 3 SCR 606                  referred to             Para 11
(1972) 4 SCC 746                  referred to             Para 11
[1976] Suppl. SCR 635             referred to             Para 11
                                                                           D
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.5897
of 2021.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 14.03.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in W.A. No.1292 of 2013.
         Niraj Kumar Singh, Satyajeet Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.      E
      T. Harish Kumar, Navneet Dugar, Shubham Kothari, Advs. for
the Respondents.
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
         DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.                                  F
         1. Leave granted.
       2. The appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the
High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 14 March 2018. The High
Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the management
against a judgment of a Single Judge.The Single Judge had upheld anorder   G
dated 31 March 2003 of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul,
rejecting an application filed by the management under Section 33(2)(b)
of the Industrial Disputes Act 19471. The management is in appeal.
1
    “ID Act”
                                                                           H
480            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 12 S.C.R.


A            3. The appellanthad an establishment which was functioning in
      Dindigul District.An application was filed by the appellant on 16
      November 2002 before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour under
      Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act for the grant of approval of its action to
      dismiss thirty-one workmen against whom disciplinary proceedings had
      been initiated and concluded. The material facts which need to be
B
      summarized for the purpose of the present appeal are thus: On 4 July
      2002, the workmen raised an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the
      ID Act.The dispute was taken into conciliation. While the conciliation
      proceedings were pending, the workers commenced a stay-in strike on
      31 July 2002. On 1 August 2002, another dispute was raised by the
C     workmen,which was taken into conciliation.The management initially
      suspended forty-seven workmen. A charge memo was issued to the
      workmen on 20 August 2002 to which there was a reply on 30 August
      2002. The management commenced a domestic enquiry.After the
      conclusion of the enquiry, a show cause notice was issued to the workmen
      on 29 October 2002. On 16 November 2002, an order of dismissal was
D
      issued. Following the order of dismissal, the management filed an
      application for approval before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour
      under Section 33(2)(b).
             4. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour held that since
      conciliation proceedings were pending with reference to a dispute which
E     was raised by the workmen on 4 July 2002 and, subsequently, on 1 August
      2002, prior approval before the termination was necessary under Section
      33(1)(b) and that the action of management in taking steps in pursuance
      of Section 33(2)(b) was unlawful. The application for approval under
      Section 33(2)(b) was rejected.The order of the Assistant Commissioner
F     of Labour was challenged in writ proceedings before the High Court.By
      a judgment dated 4 March 2013, the Single Judge held that since
      conciliation proceedings were pending before the Conciliation Officer,
      “even though the dismissal order is for some other reason”, yet the prior
      approval of the authority specified in terms of Section 33(1)(b) was
      necessary. The order of the Single Judge was carried in appeal before
G     the Division Bench.The Division Bench,while affirming the judgment,
      directed the appellant to pay (i) 50% of the back wages for the period
      from the date of dismissal till the date of the closure of the appellant’s
      unit; (ii) closure compensation; and (iii) interest at 6% per annum
      calculated from the date of closure. The appellant has closed its unit
H     from 8 July 2009.
      SRI DORAIRAJ SPINTEX v. R CHITTIBABU & ORS                                481
         [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

       5. Mr Niraj Kumar Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of the              A
appellant, submits that the Assistant Commissioner of Labourfailed to
notice the distinction between Section 33(1)(b), which postulates a
requirement of prior approval, and Section 33(2)(b), on the other hand,
which requires compliance with two conditions, namely, (i) payment of
one month’s salary, which is not in dispute; and (ii) the filing of an
                                                                                B
application to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for
approval of the action taken by the employer.Counsel submitted that the
provisions of Section 33(1)(b) are attracted when the action of the
management is in respect of any misconduct connected with the
dispute.On the other hand, where the action of the management is for
misconduct not connected with the dispute, Section 33(2)(b) would stand         C
attracted. On the above premises, it has been urged thatthe Assistant
Commissioner of Labour erred in rejecting the application for approval
on the ground that prior approval under Section 33(1)(b) was required.
       6. On the other hand, Mr T Harish Kumar, counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent – workmen, submitted that, by an order dated           D
10 February 2020 passed by the Chamber Judge in these proceedings,
the appeal stands dismissed as against Respondent Nos 10, 22, 26 and
31, who had died during the pendency of the proceedings before the
High Court for failure to bring the legal representatives on the record.
Besides this, it has been submitted that the workmen had raised an
industrial dispute initially on 4 July 2020 which was taken into conciliation   E
and, thereafter, another industrial dispute was raised on 1 August 2020
in respect of which conciliation proceedings were in progress. Hence, it
has been submitted that on a holistic view of the provisions of Section
33(1)(b), the termination of the workmen for misconduct is a matter
which must be held to be connected with the dispute. Hence, it was              F
submitted that the provisions of Section 33(1)(b) and not Section
33(2)(b)would stand attracted.In the absence of prior approval, the
termination was, according to the counsel, unlawful and the Assistant
Commissioner of Labour was correct in rejecting the application.
      7. The rival submissions fall for consideration.                          G
       8. Sections 33(1) and 33(2), upon which the dispute in the present
case turns, are extracted below for convenience of reference:
      “33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under
           certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings.-
                                                                                H
482            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 12 S.C.R.


A                  (1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding
                   before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding
                   before an arbitrator or a Labour Court or Tribunal or National
                   Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer
                   shall,—
B                  (a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter,
                   to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute,
                   the conditions of service applicable to them immediately
                   before the commencement of such proceeding; or
                   (b) for any misconduct connected with the dispute,
C                  discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, any
                   workmen concerned in such dispute,
                   save with the express permission in writing of the authority
                   before which the proceeding is pending.
                   (2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect
D                  of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance
                   with the standing orders applicable to a workman concerned
                   in such dispute or, where there are no such standing orders,
                   in accordance with the terms of the contract, whether
                   express or implied, between him and the workman -
E                  (a) alter, in regard to any matter not connected with the
                   dispute, the conditions of service applicable to that workman
                   immediately before the commencement of such proceeding;
                   or
                   (b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, or
F                  discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, that
                   workman:
                   Provided that no such workman shall be discharged or
                   dismissed, unless he has been paid wages for one month
                   and an application has been made by the employer to the
G                  authority before which the proceeding is pending for
                   approval of the action taken by the employer….”
             9. The basic premise underlying Section 33(1) is that during the
      pendency of the conciliation proceedings before a Conciliation Officer
      or a Board or of any proceeding before an arbitrator or a Labour Court
H     or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, an
         SRI DORAIRAJ SPINTEX v. R CHITTIBABU & ORS                            483
            [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

employer is prohibited from (a) altering the conditions of service of the      A
workmen; or (b) dismissing, discharging or punishing the workmen in
respect of any matter or misconduct connected with the dispute save
with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the
proceeding is pending. Both in the context of clause (a) as well as clause
(b) of sub-Section (1), the crucial words are “connected with the dispute”.
                                                                               B
Clause (a) of sub-Section (1) deals with an alteration of the conditions
of service in regard to any matter connected with the dispute.Clause (b)
deals with discharge or punishment, whether by way of dismissal or
otherwise, of a workman for any misconduct connected with the dispute.
Where the connection with the dispute exists, Section 33(1)requires the
prior permission in writing of the authority before whom a proceeding is       C
pending.
        10. On the other hand, Section 33(2) applies to (i) an alteration of
the conditions of service in regard to a matter not connected with the
dispute; or (ii) the discharge or punishment, whether by way of dismissal
or otherwise, of a workman for misconduct which is not connected with          D
the dispute. The distinction between sub-Section (1) and sub-Section (2)
lies in whether the action which is proposed by the employer during the
pendency of a conciliation proceeding is or is not connected with the
dispute.Whether the action is connected to the dispute has to be
determined on the basis of the facts of each case.
                                                                               E
       11. When the ID Act was enacted, Section 33 imposed a ban on
the employer discharging, dismissing or punishing a workman during the
pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal and other specified authorities
“except for misconduct not connected with the dispute”. By Amending
Act 48 of 1950, Section33 was substituted and a complete ban was
imposed against discharge, dismissal or punishment of a workman during         F
the pendency of proceedings before the Court and other specified
authorities. The right of the employer to take action even for misconduct
was withdrawn. Parliament being conscious of the need for discipline in
industry amended the provision by substituting Section 33 by Act 36 of
1956 so as to restore to the employer the right to take punitive action in     G
specified conditions. The impact of the legislative change was noticed in
a judgment of three judges of this Court in Strawboard Manufacturing
Company Ltd. v.Govind2, Justice KN Wanchoo, speaking for the three
judge Bench observed :
2
    (1962) Supp 3 SCR 618                                                      H
484               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2021] 12 S.C.R.


A           “3. Before however we turn to the interpretation of the proviso
            we may refer to the circumstances in which Section 33(2) came
            to be enacted. Originally there was no such provision like Section
            33(2) in the Act and the only provision to be found therein
            corresponded to the present Section 33(1). The object behind
            enacting Section 33 as it was before the amendment of 1956 was
B           to allow continuance of industrial proceedings pending before any
            authority prescribed by the Act in a calm and peaceful atmosphere
            undisturbed by any other industrial dispute. The plain object of the
            section was to maintain the status quo as far as possible during
            the pendency of any industrial dispute before a tribunal. But it
C           seems to have been felt that Section 33, as it stood before the
            amendment of 1956, was too stringent for it completely took away
            the right of the employer to make any alteration in the conditions
            of service or to make any order of discharge or dismissal without
            making any distinction as to whether such alteration or such an
            order of discharge or dismissal was in any manner connected
D           with the dispute pending before an industrial authority. It seems to
            have been felt therefore that the stringency of the provision should
            be softened and the employer should be permitted to make changes
            in conditions of service etc. which were not connected with the
            dispute pending before an Industrial Tribunal. For the same reason
            it was felt that the authority of the employer to dismiss or discharge
E
            a workman should not be completely taken away where the
            dismissal or discharge was dependent on matters unconnected
            with the dispute pending before any tribunal. At the same time it
            seems to have been felt that some safeguards should be provided
            for a workman who may be discharged or dismissed during the
F           pendency of a dispute on account of some matter unconnected
            with the dispute. Consequently Section 33 was redrafted in 1956
            and considerably expanded. It is now in five sub-sections while
            before 1956 it consisted practically of what is now sub-section
            (1).”
            This decision was also confirmed by a Constitution Bench of this
G     Court in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd v. Ram Gopal
      Sharma and Ors.3.These provisions have been interpreted in several
      decisions of this Court including Chartered Bank, Bombay v.
      Chartered Bank Employees’ Union4; Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd v.
      3
          AIR 2002 SC 643
      4
H         (1960) 3 SCR 441
       SRI DORAIRAJ SPINTEX v. R CHITTIBABU & ORS                             485
          [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

Workmen 5 ; PD Sharma v. State Bank of India 6; Air India                     A
Corporation v. Rebellow7; Workmen of Sudder Office, Cinnamara
v. Management of Sudder Office8; and Mahendra Singh Dhantwal
v. Hindustan Motors Ltd9.Where the termination for misconduct is
not connected to the industrial dispute, Section 33(2)(b) recognizes the
authority of the employer to initiate disciplinary action while at the same
                                                                              B
time imposing safeguards. They are intended to balance the disciplinary
jurisdiction of the employer with the need to ensure that there is no
victimization of the workmen.
      12. In the present case, the order of the Assistant Commissioner
of Labour takes note of the fact that initially a dispute was raised on 4
July 2002 by the workmen under Section 2(k) based on the following            C
demands:
       “1.    Passed (sic) on seniority in the spoiling unit, the workmen
              should be posted as sider and arya lifters
       2.     The monthly salary for the workmen working in the factory       D
              should be paid before 7th of the month
       3.     The workmen working in the factory shall be given hygienic
              drinking water
       4.     The women workmen working in the factory should be given
              two protective clothes to protect from the accident in every    E
              year.”
      13. The demand was received in the office of the Conciliation
Officer and conciliation proceedings were in progress. The Union
commenced a stay-in strike. Another dispute was raised on 1 August
2002 for the grant of permanency to the workmen in the factory and the        F
conciliation proceedings were initiated on the demand.The management
convened the disciplinary proceeding on the ground that the workmen
had indulged in acts of vandalism involving the property of the employer.
The disciplinary proceedings were convened for acts of vandalism
involving the property of the employer. The misconduct for which the
enquiry was convened had no connect with the demands by the workmen.          G

5
  (1964) 7 SCR 555
6
  (1968) 3 SCR 91
7
  (1972) 1 SCC 814
8
  (1972) 4 SCC 746
9
  (1976) 4 SCC 606                                                            H
486            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 12 S.C.R.


A     In the first of the two conciliation proceedings, the demand of the
      workmen was for promotional avenues, the payment of monthly salary
      before the seventh day of each month, drinking water and protective
      clothing. In the second conciliation proceedings, the workmen had claimed
      the status of permanency. The disciplinary enquiry was held in respect
      of the acts of misconduct alleged to have been committed by the workmen
B
      involving the property of the employer.These dismissal for misconduct
      cannot be regarded as being connected to the dispute which was raised
      in conciliation,as noted above. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour
      came to the conclusion that the enquiry was conducted in accordance
      with the principles of natural justice and entered a finding of fact that
C     there was no evidence to indicate that some of the workmen were
      protected workmen. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour also held
      that on 2 August 2002, a law and order problem had arisen as a result of
      which the management had initiated disciplinary proceedings.
      Nonetheless, the Assistant Commissionerof Labour came to the
      conclusion that onceconciliation proceedings were initiated, prior approval
D
      under Section 33(1)(b) was necessary and this finding has been confirmed
      both by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. In
      entering this finding, all the three fora have clearly lost sight of the
      distinction between sub-Section (1) and sub-Section (2) of Section 33 of
      the ID Act. The Single Judge noticed that the dismissal was for some
E     other reason, yet held that Section 33 (1)(b) was attracted.There has
      been no independent application of mind by the Division Bench at all.
            14. Once we have come to the conclusion that the action of dismissal
      for misconduct was not connected with the dispute which was pending
      in conciliation, the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act would
F     stand attracted. There is no dispute about the fact that there was
      compliance of the provisions of Section 33(2)(b), nor is there a finding to
      the contrary. In this view of the matter, the order of the Assistant
      Commissioner of Labour was contrary to law and there was an error on
      the part of the Single Judge and the Division Bench in affirming the
      order.We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned
G     judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature
      at Madras dated 14 March 2018.In consequence, the application for
      approval filed by the appellant under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act
      would stand approved.
            15. Since the appeal stands rejected against Respondent Nos 10,
H     22, 26 and 31 in pursuance of the order of the Chamber Judge dated 10
       SRI DORAIRAJ SPINTEX v. R CHITTIBABU & ORS                              487
          [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

February 2020, we clarify that this order shall not affect the entitlement     A
of the legal representatives of the deceased – workmen to the benefits
which flow in accordance with law.
       16. There shall be no order as to costs.
       17. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
                                                                               B
Devika Gujral                                            Appeal disposed of.




                                                                               C




                                                                               D




                                                                               E




                                                                               F




                                                                               G




                                                                               H