JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 14.10.1981. Reply was submitted by the petitioner on 17.10.1981. Treating the same as confession/admission of the petitioner, services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 28.11.1981. Since a general dispute was pending before the Labour Court, Kota, an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was filed by respondent No. 2, the employer seeking approval of dismissal of the petitioner. During the pendency of the approval application, a reference under Section 10 of the Act of 1947 was also made by the High Court in regard to termination of services of the petitioner to the Labour Court, Kota vide notification dated 4.4.1984. The Labour Court clubbed the proceedings of approval application as also the reference, so made. While considering the submissions of both the sides, the Labour Court held that there has been compliance of Section 33(2) (b). The Labour Court also held that no inquiry was made before termination of services of the petitioner. However, the Labour Court also taking the reply of the petitioner to the charge-sheet as admission of the misconduct, answered the reference to the extent that the termination was held legal and justified vide award dated 11.8.1992, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record, the impugned award as also the scheme of the Act of 1947. 3. There cannot be any dispute that dismissal order does not become final till approved by the Labour Court/Tribunal under Section 33(2) (b) of the Act of 1947. If the approval application is rejected, the concerned workman is treated to be in service as if no dismissal order has been passed and in case the approval is granted, then the concerned workman still have a remedy of raising a dispute under Section 10 of the Act of 1947 and at that stage only the State Government is required to refer the dispute for adjudication to a competent court. In the present case it is not known as to under what circumstances the reference under Section 10 was made by the State Government to the Labour Court when the approval application still been pending before a competent court. It is also not known as to under what procedure the Labour Court could club both the proceedings together. In the present case it is not known as to under what circumstances the reference under Section 10 was made by the State Government to the Labour Court when the approval application still been pending before a competent court. It is also not known as to under what procedure the Labour Court could club both the proceedings together. Jurisdiction of the Labour Court is entirely different under both the proceedings. Jurisdiction in one proceeding can only be exercised after completion of the other proceedings. In my opinion, the procedure adopted by the Labour Court in the present case is wholly irregular and cannot be sustained. 4. That apart, allegation against the petitioner is only in regard to absence from duty for 38 days during the period of about nine months. The petitioner has tried to explain his absence from duty on the ground of illness. The treatment in ESI Dispensary has also been brought on record. A bare reading of the reply filed by the petitioner to the charge-sheet would show that the same could not have been taken as a confession so as to impose extreme punishment of dismissal. The petitioner should have been given an opportunity of hearing and explaining his absence from duty. Since admittedly no inquiry, whatsoever, has been held before termination of services of the petitioner, it was incumbent on the part of the employer to seek permission, of the court to prove the charges before the Labour Court and the Labour Court also could have given such permission. However, no such procedure was also adopted in the present case. 5. Petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1968. His services were terminated on 28.11.1981. The approval application under Section 33(2) (b) was also filed to the same time. Subsequent reference was made by the State Government vide notification dated 4.4.1984 and the award has been passed by the Labour Court on 11.3.1992. More than 24 years have lapsed after passing of the dismissal order. Having considered entire facts and circumstances, it will not be justified to remand the matter back to the Labour Court to decide the approval application as also reference afresh in accordance with law. However, under writ jurisdiction, this court is competent to modify the relief, as sought by the petitioner. No other misconduct has been alleged against the petitioner. Having considered entire facts and circumstances, it will not be justified to remand the matter back to the Labour Court to decide the approval application as also reference afresh in accordance with law. However, under writ jurisdiction, this court is competent to modify the relief, as sought by the petitioner. No other misconduct has been alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner had also tendered his apologies for remaining absent for few days. Looking to nature of allegations made, though the relief of reinstatement cannot be granted after such a considerable delay, however, considering overall facts and circumstances of the present case, the ends of justice would meet if the petitioner is awarded a sufficient compensation in lieu of reinstatement and the same is quantified to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac). 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The respondent- employer is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement and all other service benefits except for the P.F. Amount, which the petitioner can always withdraw from the concerning authorities. The respondent-employer may pay the above amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.Petition partly allowed. *******