ORDER 12.11.2007 : Heard. Annexure-1, the order, is under challenge. Petitioner is the employer and opposite party No.2 is the employee. The employer charged opposite party No.2 for certain mis-conduct and after filing the show-cause reply the employer took note of admission charges by opposite party No.2. After issuing second show-cause notice proposing measure punishment, the employer terminated the service of the opposite party No.2 on the ground of admission of charge and gravity of the misconduct. Then dispute being pending with the Assistant Labour Commission¬er, Bhubaneswar for conciliation application under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act was filed by the opposite party No.1 seeking approval of order of termination. Admitting that application, the Assistant Labour Commissioner issued notice to both the parties for enquiry. The opposite party No.2 filed his written statement. Petitioner did not file any written state¬ment since it had applied for approval of the punishment. The Assistant Labour Commissioner thereafter passed the following consequential order : “Now, therefore, in pursuance of Section-33(5) of the I.D. Act, 1947 the undersigned do not approve the aforesaid action taken by the management as applied for due to following reasons :- (1) No prima facie case of mala fide victimisation or unfair labour practice has been brought out by the management against the workmen. (2) That the management has dismissed the workmen without conducting domestic enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice to establish the charges framed against the workmen. Thus there exist no prima facie case against the work¬men.” Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that filing of written statement by the Management was not necessary and the grounds taken in the application for approval supported by document should have been considered by the Assistant Labour Commissioner before deriving any conclusion and at best the procedure for enquiry should have been resorted to before passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 however supports the impugned order. Learned Additional Govern¬ment Advocate finds it difficulty to appreciate the approach of the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Regard being had to the aforesaid submission and the legal provision, we find that Assistant Labour Commissioner mis-directed his approach by asking for written statement from the Management without application of mind to the grounds stated in application for approval. Learned Additional Govern¬ment Advocate finds it difficulty to appreciate the approach of the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Regard being had to the aforesaid submission and the legal provision, we find that Assistant Labour Commissioner mis-directed his approach by asking for written statement from the Management without application of mind to the grounds stated in application for approval. In course of the enquiry, the Assistant Labour Commissioner could have followed the procedure by asking the parties to examine themselves and produce their respective evidence. If the Assistant Labour Commissioner is required to seek for some clarification, then that is within his jurisdiction and power. Without doing that taking a negative attitude against the Management for not filing the written statement is not prop¬er. Under such circumstance, we quash the order, Annexure-1, and remand the matter to the Assistant Labour Commissioner for fresh enquiry and disposal of the case in accordance with law. The Assistant Labour Commissioner shall bear in mind that we have expressed no opinion on the merit of the case of either of the parties and he is to decide the same strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of the facts and evidence available to him but such matter should be decided expeditiously and as far as practicable within a period of two months from the date of re¬ceipt of a copy of this order. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 submits that oppo¬site party No.2 has preferred an appeal against the impugned order of punishment of termination from service. That appeal is pending before the appellate authority, i.e., Board of Directors since 5.6.2007. It is appropriate for the opposite party No.2 to approach the appellate authority for early disposal of the case and if any such application is moved within a week, then it would be appropriate for the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within a period of four weeks from that date. Order accordingly.