- (1.) The intra-Court appeal has been preferred questioning the legality of the order dated 10.8.2005 passed by the Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5514/2005. The services of workman were dispensed with on the ground of misconduct, however no approval was obtained from the Labour Court under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'); no such application was filed. The Single Bench, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors., 2002 1 JT 182 has adjudged the order of removal to be void and it has been held that employee shall be deemed to have been continued in service. The application was filed under Section 33A of the Act on the ground that order of removal was invalid as it was not got approved from the Labour Court under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act; reinstatement was prayed and the Labour Court ordered for reinstatement, however, with 50% back-wages. The above order was questioned by the Employer by way of filing writ application before the Single Bench, the same has been dismissed by the impugned order. Consequently, the intra Court appeal has been preferred.
(2.) We have heard Mr. Ashok Bansal, Counsel appearing on behalf of appellants.
(3.) After hearing learned counsel for appellants, we are of the considered view that since order of removal was not got approved from the Labour Court under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, order of removal was rendered invalid. It shall be deemed that employee had continued in service, as held by the Apex Court in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors. and also in T.N. State Transport Corporation v. Neethivilangan, Kumbakonam, 2001 9 SCC 99. In view of aforesaid decisions of Apex Court, we find that no case for interference is made out at the instance of employer in the appeal. The appeal is bereft of merit and the same is hereby dismissed.;