JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.6.1993 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, by which, application filed under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act), seeking approval of dismissal of the respondent No. 1 (the concerned workman) vide order dated 6.11.1992 has been rejected. The approval has not been granted by the Tribunal only on the ground that the departmental enquiry held against the concerned workman was not fair and proper. The Tribunal has also held that compliance of section 33(2)(b) of the Act has also not been made in so far as the passing of dismissal order, payment of notice pay and filing of approval application did not form part of the same transaction. 2. In spite of service of notice, the concerned workman has not chosen to appear before this court. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the material on record as also the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 4. There cannot be any dispute that the approval has sought in regard to order dated 6.11.1992. The payment has also been made prior to the above date and the application for approval had also been submitted on 6.11.1992 itself. The Tribunal, on absolute wrong premises, held that the dismissal should have been treated from 20.10.1992 when the decision was taken for dismissal of the concerned workman. The decision in this regard is not relevant until and unless a formal order of dismissal passed and the same has been passed on 6.11.1992 itself, as such, the finding in regard to compliance of mandatory provision of section 33(2)(b) cannot be sustained. The apart, in the approval application itself the petitioner has prayed that in case the departmental enquiry is held to be improper, the petitioner may be allowed to prove the charges against the concerned workman before the Tribunal itself. In view of settled law, after holding the departmental enquiry to be unfair, the Tribunal ought to have granted permission to the petitioner to prove the charges against the concerned workman before the Tribunal more so, when, at the very, initial stage in the approval application itself, such prayer has already been made by the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 1.6.1993 passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 1.6.1993 passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the application under section 33(2)(b) afresh after allowing the petitioner to prove the charges against the concerned workman before the Tribunal. The concerned workman shall be free to rebut the evidence so led on behalf of the petitioner. Before proceeding further, the Tribunal shall issue proper notice to the concerned workman. Since the termination relates to the year 1992, it is expected of the Tribunal to expedite the hearing as well. 6. Copy of this order may be sent to the Tribunal for further necessary action and compliance.Petition allowed. *******