Permission from the Labour Court or Tribunal underneath Section 33 (2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is required to be obtained by the employer within the occasion of the employer eager to “vary the terms of service” during the pendency of dispute both between the employer and the workman or between the employer and the union, mentioned the High Court of Karnataka.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj handed the order whereas dismissing a petition filed by Bengaluru-based Mulberry Silks Ltd., a producer of silk materials.
Cannot be dismissed
“As the dismissal would definitely be covered under the scope and ambit of ‘varying the terms of service’, the employer cannot dismiss an employee from the service during the pendency of dispute without obtaining necessary permission from the Labour Court under application under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act,” the court docket noticed.
The petitioner-company had questioned the labour court’s 2007 determination of directing the corporate to reinstate an worker, who was dismissed from the service during the pendency of dispute.
Also, the court docket mentioned that if just a few of the workmen settle the dispute over cost of cash with the employer underneath Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, the remaining workmen are usually not required to settle the identical as per the settlement agreed between the employer and another workmen.
“The workmen’s individual claims/dues subject matter of Section 33C(2) of ID Act, proceedings can continue to be agitated irrespective of the settlement of dispute with other workmen,” the court docket clarified.
