Kerala High Court
K.Chandrasekhar vs Tata Global Beverages Limited on 16 October, 2025
2025:KER:77346
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 24TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 20560 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
K.CHANDRASEKHAR,
AGED 46 YEARS
CIVIL ASSISTANT, INSTANT TEA OPERATIONS TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE
,LIMITED, NULLATANI, MUNNAR 685 612
BY ADV SMT.A.K.PREETHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,
INSTANT TEA DIVISION, NULLATANNI, MUNNAR 685 612,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
2 REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
ERNAKULAM O/O. THE RJLC, CIVIL STATION, KAKKAND, ERNAKULAM
682 030
BY ADVS.
SHRI.BENNY P. THOMAS (SR.)
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.D.PREM KAMATH
SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)
SHRI.ABEL TOM BENNY
SHRI.JYOTHISH KRISHNA
SMT.MEENAKSHY S DEV
SHRI.AHAMMAD SACHIN K.
SHRI.KURIAN OOMMEN THERAKATH
ADV.D PREM KOMATH, ADV. TOM THOMAS, SRI RIYAL DEVASSY GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.09.2025,
THE COURT ON 16.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.20560 of 2020 -2-
2025:KER:77346
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2025
Above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 and for a
consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P4
application and pass fresh orders on the same.
2. Petitioner was a workman under the 1 st respondent. While
working as civil assistant petitioner was issued with show cause
notice which ultimately ended up in Ext.P1 order of dismissal dated
14.12.2019. Petitioner has a contention that the disciplinary
proceeding initiated is only a result of a large design of the 1 st
respondent to weaken the trade union and its activities as the
petitioner was very active in the activities of the employees union.
At the time of issuance of Ext.P1 dismissal order, industrial dispute
pertaining to additional hiring of employees and regarding the rate
of bonus raised by the union was pending before the Deputy Labour
Officer, Munnar and pointing out that Ext.P1 order was issued in
violation of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for
short "Act, 1947") the union representing the petitioner submitted
Ext.P2 objection dated 15.12.2019 requesting to reinstate the
petitioner. Upon receiving Ext.P2 and realising the illegality in issuing
Ext.P1, 1st respondent issued Ext.P3 letter dated 31.12.2019
intimating about an application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the
2025:KER:77346
Act, 1947 before the Deputy Labour Officer, Munnar and regarding
the transfer of one month's wages to be credited to the account of
the petitioner. Ext.P4 is a copy of the application submitted by the 1 st
respondent before the 2nd respondent under Section 33(2)(b) of the
Act, 1947 to which petitioner submitted Ext.P5 objection as well as
Ext.P6 notes of argument. Without considering any of the contention
of the petitioner in a proper manner Ext.P7 order was issued
approving Ext.P4 application submitted by the management. It is
aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed.
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 2 nd
respondent contending that since the petitioner is not a protected
workman no permission was required as alleged in the writ petition
and the petitioner was paid wages at the time of dismissal itself and
there is no delay in payment of wages. It is further contended that
there is no deliberate delay on the part of the 1 st respondent in filing
the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947 and
accordingly, it is in the said circumstances that Ext.P7 order was
issued approving the action taken by the management against the
petitioner by dismissing him from service.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1 st
respondent management also submitted that action was taken
against the petitioner on having found that the petitioner had
2025:KER:77346
collected a bribe of approximately Rs.20 lakhs, and that the
allegation was proved in the enquiry and based on that the
petitioner was dismissed from service.
5. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.
6. Certain dates are relevant for consideration of this writ
petition. Ext.P1 order of dismissal is dated 14.12.2019. An objection
to that which was filed by the union as Ext.P2 is dated 15.12.2019.
Thereupon Ext.P3 letter dated 31.12.2019 was issued to the
petitioner intimating that an application was filed under Section
33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947 and intimating that one month's pay has
been credited to the petitioner's bank account by cheque dated
31.12.2019. The 2nd respondent passed Ext.P7 order rejecting the
contention raised by the petitioner regarding non-payment of one
month's salary at the time of dismissal holding that in the case of
the petitioner one month's salary was paid at the time of dismissal
itself. Section 33(1) & (2) of the Act, 1947 which is relevant for
consideration of the case reads as follows:-
"33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain
unchanged under certain circumstances during
pendency of proceedings.--
(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
2025:KER:77346
Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall,
--
(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,
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 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) 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 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."
2025:KER:77346
So going by the said proviso to Sub Rule 2 of Section 33 no 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 proceedings is pending for approval
of the action taken by the employer.
7. The Apex Court in Straw Board Manufacturing Co.
Ltd. Saharanpur v. Govind [1962 KHC 606] has held that the
employer would have the right to pass an order of discharge or
dismissal subject to two conditions, namely, payment of wages for
one month and making an application to the authority concerned for
approval of the action taken, and further held that the employer
when taking action under Section 33(2) by dismissing or discharging
an employee, should immediately pay him or offer to pay him wages
for one month and also make an application to the authority for
approval of the action taken. Similar view was taken by this Court in
Secretary, Kottayam District Co-operative MSU Ltd. v.
Industrial Tribunal [1983 KHC 93] wherein it was held that there
must be actual payment or tender with the production of money. For
satisfactory compliance of mandate of Section 33(2) of the Act,
1947. Paragraph 9 of the said judgment reads as follows:-
"9. It is thus well settled that when a provision of law states
that an amount must be paid, a valid tender of the amount
even followed by a refusal to receive would be sufficient
2025:KER:77346
discharge of the obligation cast on the person required to pay
the amount. Mere offer to pay or even setting apart money for
the purpose of payment in case the person entitled to receive
it approaches would not be sufficient to make it a tender. By
tender is meant an offer coupled with production of the money
so that at the point of time of the offer the other person must
be able either to receive it or to refuse to receive it. The tender
can be made by actual production of the amount in the
presence, of the employee or it can be sent by money order or
demand draft or in any other convenient form. A mere
invitation to go over and receive the amount cannot be treated
as tender. Therefore, hold that the 1st respondent was right in
holding that tender of one month's wages in this case was
made only on 16-12-1977 and not along with the despatch of
the order of discharge. The order of discharge was despatched
on 9-12-1977. The application of approval was posted on 10-
12-1977 and was received by the 1 st respondent on 14-12-
1977. Even assuming that the date of despatch must be the
date of application it can be seen that the three acts
mentioned in S.33 (2) (b) of the Act were not performed in this
case as part and parcel of the same transaction. The tender of
one month's wages was made several days after the order of
discharge and also several days after the making of the
application. The 1st respondent was therefore right in holding
that the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions
stipulated in S.33(2)(b) of the Act. The refusal to grant
approval to the order of discharge was therefore justified."
Admittedly, Section 33 specifies that a workman could be discharged
or dismissed only if he is paid wages for one month and an
application has been made by the employer to the authority for
2025:KER:77346
approval of the action taken. Admittedly, the petitioner was
dismissed from service as per Ext.P1 dated 14.12.2019. Next day the
union brought to the notice of the management that the dismissal is
in violation of Section 33 of the Act, 1947. Understanding the
mistake, Ext.P3 notice was issued to the petitioner intimating that
they have filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act,
1947 before the Deputy Labour Officer, Munnar for approval of their
action in dismissing the petitioner. Further it is intimated that the
bank transfer of one month's salary is credited in the account of the
petitioner. Admittedly, the tendering of the amount was only on
30.12.2019, whereas the Section mandates that the workman shall
be discharged or dismissed only on payment of the wages for one
month and an application for approval of the action taken is filed
before the authority concerned. A perusal of Ext.P7 order would
reveal that there is a finding that in the case of the petitioner one
month's salary was paid at the time of dismissal itself, which is not
correct inasmuch as dismissal was on 14.12.2019 and the payment
was on 30.12.2019.
8. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the matter
requires reconsideration by the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, Ext.P7 is
set aside with a consequential direction to the 2 nd respondent to
reconsider Ext.P4 with notice to the petitioner and affording an
2025:KER:77346
opportunity of hearing and examine whether the dismissal of the
petitioner was strictly in accordance with the proviso to Section
33(2) of the Act, 1947 and in the light of declaration of law in
Secretary Kottayam Disputes Co-operative MSU Ltd. and
Straw Board Manufacturing Co.Ltd's case cited supra. A decision
in this regard shall be taken within an outer limit of one month from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sbk/-
2025:KER:77346
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20560/2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER NO.
IR/05/19 DATED 14/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY
TATA FINLAY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, DATED
15/12/2019 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH
COPIES TO LABOUR AUTHORITIES INCLUDING THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31/12/2019
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 32 (2) (B) OF THE
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT 1947.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED
12/03/2020 FIELD BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/07/2020
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN IR 4/2020.
