Y. B. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE present petition challenges the order passed by the Conciliation officer (respondent no. 2) dismissing the petitioners application for approval for the dismissal of the first respondent workman under section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act" for short ). ( 2 ) THE pertinent facts, in brief, are as under:2. 1. The petitioner-Corporation initiated disciplinary inquiry against the first respondent-workman on the charge that he had suppressed material fact, and had also made a false statement and averment that he was a "hindu Gurjar Kumbhar" by caste, i. e. a member of the Scheduled Tribe, and by this false statement and assertion managed to get himself appointed as a conductor by the Selection Committee, and that he was subsequently not able to produce the necessary certificate. As a result of the inquiry, in which the workman had participated, the Inquiry Officer found the workman guilty of the charges alleged against him viz. about having obtained the appointment by a falsf assertion as to a material fact which was within his knowledge. The workman was the served with a second show-cause notice as regards his punishment, and was thereafter dismissed from service by order dated 26th September, 1994. 2. 2. On the same day viz. 26th September 1994 the workman was tendered the amount of one month salary due to him and again on the same day an application was made to the second respondent for approval of the order of dismissal in terms of section 33 (2) (b) of the Act. 2. 3. The second respondent thereupon issued a notice to the concerned workman viz. the first respondent herein, a copy whereof is at Annexure-B to the petition. It is pertinent to note that the said notice has been issued by the second respondent, that it is specifically issued to the first respondent-workman by name and designation, and the same has been issued in the approval proceedings numbered as IDM 28/94. The said notice also contains recitals to the effect that the applicant of that application viz. the present petitioner has filed an application under section 33, that the said application is to be heard on the specified date, and that the workman should file his objections/reply in respect of the application either in person or through his authorised representative. The said notice also contains recitals to the effect that the applicant of that application viz. the present petitioner has filed an application under section 33, that the said application is to be heard on the specified date, and that the workman should file his objections/reply in respect of the application either in person or through his authorised representative. There cannot be any dispute that this notice was served on the dismissed workman, firstly because the notice has been endorsed to him by name and designation, the same has been dispatched to his specified address which is admittedly the correct address, and also because the workman has in fact filed his objections on record. 2. 4. The objections to the approval application filed by the first respondent-workman are also on record at Annexure-B. A plain reading of such objections indicates, apart from the objections on the merits of the approval application, that the workman is aware that an application specifically designated as IDM 28/94 has been filed by the present petitioner, that it pertains to the approval of his dismissal order, and. that the hearing thereof has been fixed on the date specified in the notice issued by the second respondent. 2. 5. Thus, there cannot be any possible dispute of misunderstanding as to the nature of the proceedings nor the number of the said proceedings. It is equally obvious from the objections raised by the workman, that the nature of the proceedings and the number of the proceedings have come to his knowledge, from a notice issued by the second respondent himself, on the basis of the petitioners approval application. 2. 6. However, the second respondent passed the impugned order at Annexure-C, dismissing the approval application on the simple ground that the application does not disclose "which" conductor is involved in the said application. In other words, the substance of the impugned order is that the identity of the conductor, whose dismissal is the subject matter of the approval application, is not established by the application. On this simple assertion of fact the approval application has been rejected. ( 3 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances noted and discussed hereinabove, it is obvious that the impugned order at Annexure-C to the petition suffers from a patent non-application of mind. On this simple assertion of fact the approval application has been rejected. ( 3 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances noted and discussed hereinabove, it is obvious that the impugned order at Annexure-C to the petition suffers from a patent non-application of mind. Assuming for the sake of argument that the approval application is not adequately clear (which assumption I am making only for the purpose of testing the assertion of fact made in the impugned order), this did not come in the way of the second respondent when he issued the notice in the proceedings, which notice was specifically addressed to the first respondent-workman, both by name, designation and address, furthermore, the second respondent clearly closed his eyes to the record of proceedings before him. This record could not have been ignored inasmuch as the objections raised by the workman is filed at Exh. 10 thereof. If the second respondent had taken the trouble to even casually go through the notice issued by himself, or had taken a look at the workmans objections at Exh. 10 in the proceedings before him, it would not have been possible for him to hold that the identity of the conductor, whose dismissal is the subject matter of the approval application, is not disclosed. Under the circumstances. I can only conclude that the impugned order suffers from an obvious non-application of mind. The same, therefore, requires to be auashed and set aside. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. ( 4 ) I am, however, mindful of the fact that this order of rejection is, strictly speaking, not on the merits of the matter. It is, therefore, directed that on the impugned order being quashed and set aside, the said approval application No. IDM 28/94 shall stand restored to file, and the second respondent shall hear and decide the same on merits in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. .