Judgment Heard learned Counsel for the parties extensively. 2. Writ Petitioner questions order dated 20.4.2010 passed by Respondent No.1 Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Conciliation Officer, whereby he has rejected approval application moved by the petitioner/employer, on the ground of 12 days delay and treating the same to be not in tune to the scope of Section 32(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, I.D. Act). 3. The petitioner is employer while Respondent No.2 a employee. Alleged misconduct by Respondent No.2 has resulted in issuing show cause notice-cum-charge sheet by the petitioner. Respondent No.2 was suspended as per Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. In domestic enquiry, Respondent No.2 was held guilty. Second show cause notice was served to the Respondent No.2 and on 8th September, 2008. It was replied by Respondent No.2 on 15th September, 2008. Thereafter, on 17th September, 2008 services of Respondent No.2 were terminated. 4. On 19.9.2008, Respondent No.2 moved Respondent No.1 and pursuant thereto, Respondent No.1 issued a letter to petitioner on 19.9.2008 and conveyed that the charter of demands raised by the union was admitted in conciliation on 5.8.2008 and hearing was scheduled on 26th September, 2008. 5. It was pointed by the petitioner that initially Charter of Demands, raised by the union was countered by it by letter dated 10.4.2008 and secondly, it was informed to close the proceedings being Complaint (ULP) No.72/2007 moved by the union. There was no communication from the authorities of Respondent No.1 to the petitioner and indeed, respondent No.1 has indicated that conciliation proceedings could not be materialized and closed. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is, after issuance of dismissal order and communicating the same to the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.106/2007 moved by respondent No.2, Respondent No.2, surreptitiously moved the authorities of Respondent No.1 and procured a letter dated 19.9.2008 (Exhibit-6) and Respondent No.1 informed the union that the matter is fixed to 19.9.2009. A copy of this letter was remitted/dropped in the letter-box of the petitioner. Realizing this difficulty, the petitioner moved approval application in terms of Section 33 (2) (b) of the I.D. Act and paid 42 days' wages to the Respondent No.2 as the approval application was filed on 29.9.2008 after 12 days of dismissal of the respondent No.2. 7. These facts, referred above, are not in controversy. Realizing this difficulty, the petitioner moved approval application in terms of Section 33 (2) (b) of the I.D. Act and paid 42 days' wages to the Respondent No.2 as the approval application was filed on 29.9.2008 after 12 days of dismissal of the respondent No.2. 7. These facts, referred above, are not in controversy. Respondent No.1 felt, such approval application is belated by 12 days and, therefore, it being not moved with 30 days wages, such application was rejected. 8. Learned Counsel for the respective parties placed reliance to the judgment in the matter of Strawboard Manufacturing Company Vs. Gobind -1962 I LLJ 420, wherein Constitution Bench indicated legal position of law and also the effect of Section 33(2) (b) of the I.D. Act on the controversy between employer and employee, necessity of seeking approval. 9. This judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was referred and relied upon by the Division Bench of Madras High Court in the matter of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Villupuram Vs. Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Chennai and Anr. 2006-III-LLJ 932, It was observed, -" that essential ingredients of Section 33(2) (b) is that, payment of one month's wages should be made along with order of dismissal in order to soften the rigour of unemployment that will face the workman, against whom the order of discharge or dismissal has been passed." It was held in the said judgment, -"What was essentially intended by the Legislature is that one month's salary or wages were required to be paid to the employee concerned." 10. There is no contest on the legal position that Section 33(2)(b) of I.D. Act has a mandatory characteristic and has to be adhered in its letter and spirit. At the same time, enforcement sought cannot be carried to unreasonable limits. 11. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 contended that filing of application being belated and it is fatal. He has placed reliance to the following judgments : Sr. Names of parties No. Citations 1) Metal Press Works Ltd. Vs. H.R. Deb (1962) ILLJ 75 Cal. 2) The Straw Board Manufacutiring Co. Vs. Govind and ors. AIR (1962) SC 1500 3) Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Modak (S.N.) AIR 1966 SC 380 4) Jaipur Zilla Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal 2002 (92) FLR 667(SC) Sharma & Ors. WP No.5776 of 2009 decided on 5) Nashik Workers Union Vs. 2) The Straw Board Manufacutiring Co. Vs. Govind and ors. AIR (1962) SC 1500 3) Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Modak (S.N.) AIR 1966 SC 380 4) Jaipur Zilla Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal 2002 (92) FLR 667(SC) Sharma & Ors. WP No.5776 of 2009 decided on 5) Nashik Workers Union Vs. M/s 24th Nov. 2009 (Bombay High Shalimar Paints Ltd. Court) 6) Shalimar Paints Vs. Nashik Letters Patent appeal No. 306 of 7) Vidya V.Kulkarni Vs. Bombay Khadi and Village Industries Association Workers Union 2007 (114)FLR 810 Bombay High Court. 2009. decided on 14th Jan. 2010 (DB) Bombay High Court. 8) M/s Poddar Mills Ltd. Vs. Bhagwan Singh and Ors. 1973 (27) FLR (SC) 71 9) Indian Telephone Industries and Ors. Vs. Prabhakar H. Manjuare & Anr. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Special Leave Petition (Civil) 15054, 15055/98 decided on 30/10/2002 11) United Bank of India Vs. Siddhartha Chakraborty Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 10) Anil R.Joshi Vs. Air India Ltd. Appeal (Civil) 2001 of 2006 decided on 27.8.2007. (2003) ILLJ 788 Bom.(D.B.) 12. In most of the above referred cases, failure to make an application under section 33 (2)(b) of I.D.Act, for approval, was held to be liable for action under Section 317 of the Act. 13. In the matter of Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs. Modak (S.N.) -1965 II LLJ 128, the Hon'ble Lordships held, "It is now well-settled that the requirements of the proviso have to be satisfied by the employer on the basis that they form part of the same transaction; and stated generally, the employer must either pay or offer the salary for one month to the employee before passing an order of his discharge or dismissal, and must apply to the specified authority for approval of his action at the same time, or within such reasonably short time thereafter as to form part of the same transaction. It is also settled that if approval is granted, it takes effect from the date of the order passed by the employer for which approval was sought. If its approval is not granted, the order of dismissal or discharge passed by the employer is wholly invalid or inoperative, and the employee can legitimately claim to continue to be in the employment of the employer notwithstanding the order passed by him dismissing or discharging him. If its approval is not granted, the order of dismissal or discharge passed by the employer is wholly invalid or inoperative, and the employee can legitimately claim to continue to be in the employment of the employer notwithstanding the order passed by him dismissing or discharging him. In other words, approval by the prescribed authority makes the order of discharge or dismissal effective; in the absence of approval, such an order is invalid and inoperative in law.". In the said judgment, it was also stated that "the order of dismissal or discharge being incomplete, and inchoate until the approval is obtained, cannot effectively terminate the relationship of the employer and employee and that if the approval is not accorded by the Tribunal, the employer would be bound to treat the respondent as its employee and paying his full wages for the period even though the employer may subsequently proceed to terminate the services of the respondent." 14. Now, reverting to the facts of the present case, initial letter dated September 18, 2008, addressed to respondent No.2, informed him that cheque of full and final payment for the amount of dues/wages is enclosed. It was subsequently, when the employer realized that mischief played by Respondent No.2 of reviving reconciliation application to give a cloak to the dismissal efforts dated 17.9.2008, the petitioner informed the respondent no.2 of paying 12 days' extra wages on 29.9.2008. Considering these aspects, it is difficult to conceive that there was a deliberate omission on the part of the petitioners to cause delay of 12 days in making the application for approval or that such application did not accompany 30 days' wages. 15. The employer, as such, by avoiding the remittance, does not stand to benefit. Substantial justice and technical considerations need not be pitted against each other as, it is well-settled, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay - AIR 1987 SC 92 -Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji and Ors.) 16. The pursis filed in Complaint (ULP) 106/2007, to which reference was given by Mr. Kulkarni, needs to be read in proper perspective. On the date of filing of such pursis, the circumstances suggest that the employer/petitioner was unaware of revival of the conciliation proceedings at the behest of Respondent No.2. Vs. Mst. Katiji and Ors.) 16. The pursis filed in Complaint (ULP) 106/2007, to which reference was given by Mr. Kulkarni, needs to be read in proper perspective. On the date of filing of such pursis, the circumstances suggest that the employer/petitioner was unaware of revival of the conciliation proceedings at the behest of Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 cunningly ensured to revive the conciliation proceedings to cause sabotage to his dismissal effected after a duly constituted enquiry wherein, several days of hearing were availed by respondent no.2. This is more so, that the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Conciliation Officer had submitted his evaluation report dated 2nd December, 2008 and the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal on 7.1.2009. 17. In the light of legal position enunciated herein above, where application is made under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act before the authorities before whom such approval is pending, has to examine as to whether the order of dismissal or discharge is bonafide and whether there was victimization or unfair labour practice. However, before doing this, the rigour and effects of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act seeking approval should not have been turned down on the ground of so-called 12 days delay or that the dismissal order did not accompany 30 days wages. The observations of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. (cited supra), are eye-opener and the observations in the matter of Strawboard (cited supra) were required to be considered in right perspective. 18. In the result, the order of refusing approval dated 20.4.2010 on the count of delay of 12 days, is set aside. Respondent No.1 may accord approval of the dismissal order of Respondent No.2, the workman, in accordance with legal position and specific facts of the case. Respondent No.1 to consider the question of grant of approval in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Vs. Govind & Ors. and other connected matters referred in the judgment on the subject matter and pass appropriate orders. No costs.