JUDGMENT 1. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The legality of the order dated 6th May, 2011 passed by the Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6110/2010 has been questioned. 3. The facts in short are that a charge-sheet was served upon the appellant for misconduct. He was found guilty and punished with penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 21st April, 1993. An application was filed by the respondent corporation before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur seeking approval of its decision under section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947 and the same was decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 31st July, 1997 holding that charges levelled against the workman were not proved and order of dismissal passed was without any basis and there was no valid reason for dismissing the workman from service. The order dated 31st July, 1997 attained the finality. However, instead of reinstating, a fresh order of appointment was passed on 16th May, 1995 during the pendency of the aforesaid application for seeking approval of the order of dismissal from service. Thereafter, the appellant submitted a representation for treating his services continuous and not as a fresh appointment, but no order was passed. The appellant/petitioner filed writ petition S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6110/2011 before this Court. The Single Bench dismissed the writ petition and opined that the order passed on the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947, had lost its significance. The very order of which approval was sought by the corporation dated 21st April, 1993 stood modified on the review application filed at the behest of the petitioner, which was partly allowed by the competent authority and while taking a sympathetic view decision was taken to offer fresh appointment to the petitioner on daily wages basis and the period of service which he rendered prior thereto was oblitrated for all practical prupose. The petitioner joined service under the terms and conditions which stood modified and fresh order of appointment was issued on 3rd June, 1995, which was accepted without any protest and further after serving 16 years, writ petition was filed belatedly for seeking relief of continuity in service. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once order of approval was passed and even if punishment was modified while entertaining review application, continuity in service ought to have been granted. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once order of approval was passed and even if punishment was modified while entertaining review application, continuity in service ought to have been granted. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that once the petitioner had accepted fresh appointment without any protest and had joined the service in pursuant of fresh appointment order, during the pendency of the application under section 33(2)(b) of Act, 1947, he could not have claimed continuity in service, that too at such a belated stage. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that once the order on the application under Section 33(2)(b) attained finality and order of dismissal was not approved, it was required to be complied with even at the instance of the employer. Once punishment of dismissal was not approved, it would be unfair to deny the continuity of service to the employee and to order fresh appointment, by forfeiting service rendered earlier. On merits, the Tribunal has not approved the case under Section 33(2)(b) on the ground that there was no basis for dismissal of the workman from the service. When order of punishment was reviewed by employer, it was case of reinstatement, not that of fresh appointment. It would be arbitrary and unreasonable to deny benefit of continuity of services. 7. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that though there was some delay in filing the writ petition, but continuity could not have been denied to the workman as dismissal was not approved by the Industrial Tribunal on the application filed under section 33(2)(b) of the Act, and the employer themselves did not think it appropriate to maintain order of dismissal and passed order giving appointment afresh. It was not appropriate to count it as break in continuity in service. 8. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside to the extent that the petitioner is entitled for continuity in service from the period of dismissal till he was appointed in the year 1995. The same shall not be treated as break in service. No pecuniary benefits is granted to the appellant, but for all the other purposes, period of service rendered earlier shall be counted towards continuity in service. No costs.Appeal allowed. *******