Reinstatement cannot be denied when 33(2) (b) of ID Act is not complied with: Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Reinforces Mandatory Safeguards in Workman Dismissal
Mumbai, May 2026 In a significant ruling that strengthens statutory protections for workers, the Bombay High Court has held that reinstatement cannot be substituted with compensation when a dismissal is rendered legally void due to non‑compliance with Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (now Section 90 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020).
The judgment arose in Santosh Chandrkant Potdar vs. Bajaj Auto Limited, where a workman challenged his dismissal during the pendency of industrial proceedings. The employer argued that since the underlying dispute had already been settled, prior approval under Section 33(2)(b) was unnecessary.
The Court rejected this contention, clarifying that under Section 20(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, proceedings remain legally pending until 30 days after publication of the award. Thus, the employer’s action fell squarely within the statutory prohibition.
- Preservation of Industrial Peace: The Bench emphasised that Section 33 is designed to prevent employers from taking coercive action against workers while adjudicatory proceedings are ongoing.
- Mandatory Compliance: Before dismissing a workman for misconduct unrelated to the pending dispute, employers must pay one month’s wages and seek approval from the competent authority.
- Inchoate Dismissal: Referring to settled Supreme Court precedent, the Court reiterated that dismissal orders passed without approval remain “inchoate” and ineffective in law. The employee is deemed to continue in service as if the dismissal never took effect.
Key Directions
- The Industrial Court’s refusal to grant reinstatement was set aside.
- The High Court clarified that compensation cannot substitute reinstatement where termination itself is void due to statutory non‑compliance.
- Reinstatement with continuity of service was ordered, along with partial back wages.
This ruling reinforces the principle that statutory safeguards under Section 33(2)(b) (now Section 90 of the IR Code) are not procedural formalities but substantive rights. Employers must strictly adhere to these requirements, failing which dismissal orders will be treated as nullities.
For HR and compliance professionals, the judgment serves as a reminder that:
- Approval is non‑negotiable during pendency of disputes.
- Reinstatement is the default remedy when dismissal is void.
- Compensation in lieu of reinstatement is impermissible in cases of statutory violation.
This judgement is expected to influence future industrial adjudications by reaffirming that statutory compliance is the cornerstone of lawful termination practices. For further insights into the evolving workplace paradigm, visit
