J. N. PATEL, J. ( 1 ) RULE. In all these petitions Mr. Japee appears for private respondent. Mr. U. R. Bhatt, AGP is directed to appear on behalf of respondent No. 2-Asst. Labour Commissioner. With the consent of learned advocates matter is further taken up for hearing. ( 2 ) IN all these petitions, the petitioners have approached this court for challenging the legality and validity of the orders passed by the Asst. Labour Commissioner, dated 29. 10. 2003 for not granting approval for termination of the concerned workman under section 33 (2) (B) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). ( 3 ) I would have examined the matter further for considering the legality and validity of the order passed by the Asst. Labour Commissioner. However, Mr. Desai, Ld. advocate for the petitioners submitted that the Asst. Labour Commissioner having passed the final order on 11. 8. 03 in I. D. C. Case No. 6/03 could not have passed the order denying the approval. Mr. Desai has placed on record the copy of the order, dated 11. 8. 03 passed by the Asst. Labour Commissioner whereby the conciliation proceedings are closed on the ground that minimum number of workmen are not there for raising the dispute under the Act. Mr. Japee for the respondent workmen does not dispute the existence of order dated 11. 8. 03 passed by the Asst. Labour Commissioner for closure of proceedings. However, he submitted that the union has moved the application dated 29. 9. 03 for reopening of closed proceedings and the same is pending before the competent authority and he submitted that the order passed by the learned Asst. Labour Commissioner should not be interfered with. Mr. Bhatt, Ld. AGP for Asst. Labour Commissioner supported the order passed by the Asst. Labour Commissioner. ( 4 ) IN view of the above, it appears there was charter of demands raised by Akhil Gujarat General Mazdoor Sangh, dated 25. 11. 2003 in respect of various items as mentioned in the demand schedule. There is also no dispute on the point that the said demands were put up before the Conciliation Officer namely Assistant Labour Commissioner and ultimately the order dated 11. 8. 11. 2003 in respect of various items as mentioned in the demand schedule. There is also no dispute on the point that the said demands were put up before the Conciliation Officer namely Assistant Labour Commissioner and ultimately the order dated 11. 8. 03 has been passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner whereby the proceedings are closed on the ground that the charter of demands is not supported by minimum 10 member of the Union. Once the order, dated 11. 8. 03 having been passed by the Asst. Labour Commissioner for closure of proceedings, the Asst. Labour Commissioner would become functus officio so far as conciliation proceedings are concerned unless such proceedings are reopened by lawful order. The application for for granting approval under section 33 (2) (b) of the Act came to be filed by the petitioner on 4. 7. 03 when the aforesaid proceedings were pending. The said application under section 33 (2) (b) of the Act itself could have been disposed of as having become infructuous in view of the subsequent order dated 11. 8. 03 came to be passed on the charter of demands whereby the proceedings are closed. It is well settled that once the authority passed the final order any interim order or interim protection shall stand merged into the final order and the life of interim protection can not be beyond the final order. Whenever, any dispute umder I. D. Act is pending before appropriate forum or the court which is referred with such dispute for adjudication, the interim protection as per the provisions of the Act or by interim order of the said court would continue only till the final order is not passed by the appropriate authority or the said court. In the present case, dispute was pending before Conciliation Officer, namely, Assistant Labour Commissioner and it is not referred to any court. When the appropriate authority has closed the proceedings by final order, dated 11. 8. 2003 the same authority subsequently could not have continued to have the jurisdiction and thereby to pass impugned order on 29. 10. 2003. Therefore, on this point, the impugned order, dated 29. 10. 12003 passed by the Asst. Labour Commissioner would not survive and will have to be quashed and set aside. 8. 2003 the same authority subsequently could not have continued to have the jurisdiction and thereby to pass impugned order on 29. 10. 2003. Therefore, on this point, the impugned order, dated 29. 10. 12003 passed by the Asst. Labour Commissioner would not survive and will have to be quashed and set aside. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, the aforesaid can be considered as on today and the same shall be without prejudice to the rights of the respondent workman either individually or through their union in the event the proceedings are re-opened or the reference is made for adjudication by a process know to law. Since the matter is pending before competent authority for reopening of the proceedings I find it proper to leave the matter at that stage without observing anything further because it has been submitted by Mr. Desai for the petitioners that the petitioners have yet not received any notice nor the petitioners have any idea regarding the pendency of the proceedings for reopening. It will be for respective parties to pursue or defend case on reopening in accordance with law. ( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders passed by the Asst. Labour Commissioner are quashed and set aside with clarification that in the event the main proceedings are revived or are reopened through the procedure known to law, it would be open to both sides, namely, petitioners, respondent-workman or its union as the case may be to ventilate and pursue their grievance in accordance with law. ( 7 ) ALL the petitions are allowed accordingly. Rule in each petition is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no costs. .