Hon'ble JAIN-I, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Brief facts of this intra Court appeal are that workman/petitioner/ appellant was removed from service by the employer/respondent. The employer filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') for approval of order of dismissal of workman. The application was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur vide order dated 06.10.2004 on the ground that no charge has been proved against the workman. The said order has attained finality, however, petitioner was not reinstated in service and was not allowed to work. Thereafter, he preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1073/2005 before the Single Bench with a prayer to issue an appropriate writ holding that petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits and treating that no order of termination was ever passed against him. 3. Learned Single Judge, vide impugned order dated 15.02.2005, came to a conclusion that approval application filed by employer has been dismissed on merits, therefore, petitioner has to be treated as continuing in service and is also entitled for all consequential benefits from the date of termination till he is reinstated. However, the writ petition was dismissed observing that no specific declaration is required to be made by this Court. It is for the petitioner to approach the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) or even the Payment of Wages Authority claiming his due salary and computation can be made by the concerned court/ Authority. The Single Bench has further held that this Court under its writ jurisdiction does not sit as an executing court in such matters, moreso, when the petitioner has sufficient effective alternative remedies under the various labour laws. Being aggrieved with the order of the Single Bench, the workman has preferred this intra Court appeal. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for appellant is that the learned Single Judge came to a conclusion that after rejection of application filed by the Management under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, petitioner has to be treated as continuing in service and is also entitled for all consequential benefits, but refused to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that petitioner has sufficient effective alternative remedies under labour law. He has submitted that judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T.N. State Transport Corporation vs. Neethivilangan, Kumbakonam, (2001) 9 SCC 99 , was referred before the Single Bench and the same has been referred also in the impugned order, but still writ petition of petitioner has been dismissed holding that petitioner has sufficient effective alternative remedies under labour law. He submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar circumstances, in T.N. State Transport Corporation vs. Neethivilangan, Kumbakonam (supra), has specifically held that if the employer refuses to grant the benefits to the employee, the latter is entitled to have his right enforced by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Despite specific law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order, which is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. He, therefore, submitted that impugned order passed by the Single Bench may be set aside and the respondents may be directed to reinstate the appellant in service with all consequential benefits. 5. Learned counsel for respondents supported the impugned order of the Single Bench and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order and other documents, placed on record. 7. There is no dispute so far as the facts of the case are concerned that service of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 20.03.1993, respondents filed an application before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act for grant of approval to the order of termination. The said application of respondents was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 06.10.2004. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted an application(Annexure-3) along with order of Tribunal to the respondent, but he was not allowed to join his post, nor he was paid any salary. Thereafter, a notice for demand of justice was also served upon the respondents on 12.01.2005 and ultimately, a writ petition was filed before the Single Bench. 8. In T.N. State Transport Corporation vs. Neethivilangan, Kumbakonam (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with the case where employer initiated departmental enquiry against workman and having found the charges proved, dismissed the workman from service. Thereafter, an application was filed to accord approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was dismissed. 8. In T.N. State Transport Corporation vs. Neethivilangan, Kumbakonam (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with the case where employer initiated departmental enquiry against workman and having found the charges proved, dismissed the workman from service. Thereafter, an application was filed to accord approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was dismissed. The writ petition and writ appeal filed by employer were also dismissed. Special Leave Petition was also dismissed, even after employer failed to obtain approval of the Tribunal of order of removal, the workman was neither reinstated in service, nor paid the wages. In these circumstances, he approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Single Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to reinstate the workman forthwith in service with all consequential benefits. The employer again preferred a writ appeal before the Division Bench, but without success. Thereafter, employer preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of grant of special leave. The same argument was advanced before the Hon'ble Apex Court about availability of alternative remedy under labour law. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the employer refuses to grant the benefits to the employee the latter is entitled to have his right enforced by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Para 16 of the above judgment is reproduced as under:- “16. From the conspectus of the views taken in the decisions referred to above the position is manifest that while the employer has the discretion to initiate a departmental enquiry and pass an order of dismissal or discharge against the workman the order remains in an inchoate state till the employer obtains order of approval from the Tribunal. By passing the order of discharge or dismissal de facto the relationship of employer and employee may be ended but not the de jure relationship for that could happen only when the Tribunal accords its approval. The relationship of employer and employee is not legally terminated till approval of discharge or dismissal is given by the Tribunal. In a case where the Tribunal refuses to accord approval to the action taken by the employer and rejects the petition filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act on merits the employer is bound to treat the employee as continuing in service and give him all the consequential benefits. In a case where the Tribunal refuses to accord approval to the action taken by the employer and rejects the petition filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act on merits the employer is bound to treat the employee as continuing in service and give him all the consequential benefits. If the employer refuses to grant the benefits to the employee the latter is entitled to have his right enforced by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. There is no rational basis for holding that even after the order of dismissal or discharge has been rendered invalid on the Tribunal's rejection of the prayer for approval the workman should suffer the consequences of such invalid order of dismissal or discharge till the matter is decided by the Tribunal again in an industrial dispute. Accepting this contention would render the bar contained in Section 33(1) irrelevant. In the present case as noted earlier the Tribunal on consideration of the matter held that the employer had failed to establish a prima facie case for dismissal/discharge of the workman, and therefore, dismissed the application filed by the employer on merits. The inevitable consequence of this would be that the employer was duty-bound to treat the employee as continuing in service and pay him his wages for the period, even though he may be subsequently placed under suspension and an enquiry initiated against him.” (emphasis supplied) 9. The present case is fully covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in T.N. State Transport Corporation vs. Neethivilangan, Kumbakonam (supra). The above judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court was referred before the Single Bench, the Single Bench has also referred it in the impugned order, but still passed the impugned order, which is apparently contrary to the view of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order of the Single Bench cannot be allowed to be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. 10. Consequently, the intra Court appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the Single Bench dated 15.02.2005 is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant and allow him to continue on his post, ignoring his termination order dated 20.03.1993, with all consequential benefits, as early as possible, but not later than a period of 30 days. The stay application is also disposed of. 11. The respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant and allow him to continue on his post, ignoring his termination order dated 20.03.1993, with all consequential benefits, as early as possible, but not later than a period of 30 days. The stay application is also disposed of. 11. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.