WA/2591/2026 of The Management of Mentor Printing and Logistics Pr Vs P.Annadurai on 3 September 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.) Appellant is the Management. On charge of theft of documents, first respondent – employee - workman was subjected to a departmental inquiry and having been found by the Inquiry Officer that charges were proved, the respondent was dismissed from service. As statute mandates, approval of the authority was sought under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, on perusing the inquiry reports of the Inquiry Officer and the order of the disciplinary authority, found that the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lala Ram v. DCM Chemical Works, AIR 1978 SC 1004, were not satisfied in this case and, therefore, declined to grant approval. Being aggrieved, the Management had filed W.P.Nos.23396, 23401, 23405, 23406 and 23409 of 2024 as against the employees-workmen, who were dismissed by the Management pursuant to disciplinary proceedings.

2. Writ Petitions were filed by the Management, challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, who had declined to grant approval, and the said Writ Petitions are pending. Pending Writ Petitions, the workmen have filed petitions under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, claiming last drawn wages till the disposal of Writ Petitions.

3. The learned single Judge, considering the scope of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, though learned counsel for the Management sought time to place on record their counter affidavit, declined to grant time and allowed the petitions, directing the Management to pay last drawn wages, as prayed. Challenging the said order of the learned single Judge, this batch of Writ Appeals is filed.

4. Mr.S.Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- workman, submitted that the grounds raised in the Writ Appeals, filed by the Management, are unsustainable, and, when a workman, ordered to be reinstated, is deprived of employment, the relief under Section 17-B of the Act is automatic and mandatory. Further, according to him, when a petition under Section 17- B is filed expressly stating that the workman is not gainfully employed, it is the burden on the Management to disprove the said assertion of fact, and, since the Management has not made any denial regarding gainful employment of the workman through documents, the order of the learned single Judge, allowing the petitions filed under Section 17-B, is to be sustained.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-Management would submit that the learned single Judge had declined to grant time to file records by way of counter affidavit and that is explicitly recorded in the impugned order. That apart, he would submit that denial of approval of dismissal under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act will not cover the requirement satisfied under Section 17-B. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that only when there is an award of Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, directing reinstatement of any workman, and, if that award is challenged before a High Court, Section 17-B could be employed, whereas, in this case, it is not an award passed by a Labour Court or Tribunal, but it is an order passed by the executive, in exercise of power under Section 33 (2) (b), declining approval for dismissal, and it does not tantamount to order of reinstatement. Further, when a serious charge of theft of secret information of the company is alleged and proved in the domestic inquiry, the scope and ambit of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under Section 32 (2) (b) is to find out whether the punishment imposed is without affording opportunity and in violation of principles of natural justice, and also whether proceedings were initiated with malafide intention without any prima facie case. These findings and observations in the executive proceedings cannot be equated with an award passed by a Labour Court or Tribunal while ordering reinstatement, which is the primordial requirement for invoking Section 17-B.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

7. The order, which is challenged before the learned single Judge, is the order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Labour, in exercise of power conferred under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. Section 33 (2) (b) reads as under :

“33. (2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect 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- (a) xxxx (b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, 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 authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer.”

8. On perusal of the order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Labour, which is the subject matter of Writ Petitions and challenged before the learned single Judge, we find that he had concluded that there was no prima facie case made out against the workman and the action of dismissal from service tantamounted to victimization. The said finding is now the subject matter of Writ Petitions. Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, reads as below : “17-B. Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher Courts. - Where in any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court, full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit by such workman had been filed to that effect in such Court: Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof, the Court shall order that no wages shall be payable under this section for such period of part, as the case may be.’

9. The order challenged before the learned single Judge is neither an order of Court nor an order of reinstatement. Furthermore, the condition to plead that the workman, who is out of employment, is not gainfully employed elsewhere is a question of fact, for which the Management ought to have been given a fair opportunity to controvert the said plea. It is not an automatic relief, which should be granted for asking. On perusing the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, we find that the learned single Judge has recorded as below :

3. When these W.M.Ps. came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-management sought further time to place on record their counter-affidavits. The applications are only for payment of last drawn wages and were filed in the month of August 2025 and are pending for the past four months; therefore, no further time can be granted.”

10. We find, that, while passing the order, allowing the petitions filed under Section 17-B, the learned single Judge had not recorded even the subjective satisfaction regarding non-employment of workman or his gainful employment. In addition, the question of application of Section 17-B when the challenge is only against the executive order is also a point to be gone into indepth. However, taking into consideration of the workman and for avoiding unnecessary judicial delay, we set aside the order of the learned single Judge, by allowing the Writ Appeals, with a request to the learned single Judge to take up the main Writ Petitions and dispose them of as expeditiously as possible on merit, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this judgment, preferably within a period of two months. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.Nos.22951, 22958, 22975, 23004 and 23018 of 2026 are closed. (G.J.,J.) (E.M.,J.) 03-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DIXIT

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. AND E.MANOHARAN, J. DIXIT WA No. 2591 of 2026 & Batch 03-09-2026