JUDGMENT :- 1. These three writ petitions have been filed by the management challenging the common award dated 04.08.2004 passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore, in I.D.Nos.455,457 and 458 of 2000. Therefore, all these writ petitions were taken up and heard together and they are disposed of by means of this common order. 2. The 2nd petitioner in each writ petition was working in the winding department of the petitioner industry. On 24.12.1999, they were all transferred to spinning department. The workmen did not comply with the said order and instead they raised industrial disputes through an unrecognized trade union. In the mean while, the management issued charge memorandum to them on 20.01.2010 alleging that they did not obey the orders of transfer. An enquiry was held into the charges against the workmen in which the workmen were afforded sufficient opportunity. On enquiry, the enquiry officer held that the charges were proved. Based on the said report of the enquiry officer, the workmen were dismissed from service by independent orders dated 21.04.2000. Thereafter, they raised industrial disputes before the conciliation officer. The conciliation officer issued a notice of hearing to the workmen on 02.05.2000. The conciliation ultimately failed on 16.05.2000. Thereafter, challenging the termination orders, they raised industrial disputes in I.D.Nos.455, 457 and 458 of 2000 before the Labour Court, Coimbatore. During the pendency of the above industrial disputes, the workmen filed I.A.Nos.464 to 467 of 2003 raising preliminary issue stating that the dismissal was wrongful since no permission was obtained before such dismissal orders were issued as required under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act [hereinafter referred to as "the ID Act']. The Labour Court allowed all the interlocutory applications and accordingly allowed the I.D.Nos.455, 457 and 458 of 2000 thereby directing the management to reinstate the workmen into service with continuity of service and back wages. Challenging the same, the petitioner management is now before this court with the present writ petitions. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner management and the learned counsel for the workmen and also perused the records carefully. 4. Admittedly, in this case, the workmen were all dismissed from service on 21.04.2000. As on 21.04.2000, the conciliation proceeding was pending before the conciliation officer. The conciliation proceeding was pending from January 2000 onwards. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner management and the learned counsel for the workmen and also perused the records carefully. 4. Admittedly, in this case, the workmen were all dismissed from service on 21.04.2000. As on 21.04.2000, the conciliation proceeding was pending before the conciliation officer. The conciliation proceeding was pending from January 2000 onwards. Admittedly, before passing the orders of termination on 21.04.2000 no permission was obtained from the conciliation officer under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act. Thus, according to the workmen, the orders of dismissal are wrongful and, therefore, the same are liable to be set aside. The labour accepted the said contention. 5. In this regard, we may refer to two important judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The first one is in Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd v. Suresh Chand, 1993 (3) SCC 144. That was a case where the Hon'ble Supreme Court took the view that an order of dismissal is not wrongful simply because no permission was obtained under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act. Instead, according to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the failure to apply for approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act would not render the punishment inoperative under section 31(1) of the ID Act and the remedy available for the employee is either by way of a complaint under Section 33-A of the ID Act or by way of reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the ID Act. Thus, relying on the said judgement, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on 21.04.2000 the orders of dismissal were issued without applying for permission under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act. 6. Subsequently, the said judgement in Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd came to be considered by a larger bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaipur Zila Shakarai Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd v. Ram Gopal Sharma, (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 244. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court over ruled the judgement in Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd.s case, cited supra and held that such orders of dismissal without applying for permission under section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act are wrongful and the same are not sustainable. The said judgement is not a prospective over ruling. 7. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court over ruled the judgement in Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd.s case, cited supra and held that such orders of dismissal without applying for permission under section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act are wrongful and the same are not sustainable. The said judgement is not a prospective over ruling. 7. In view of the said decision, the labour court was right in holding that the dismissal of the workmen without getting permission under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act is not sustainable in law. Thus, the award of the labour court setting aside the dismissal of the workmen cannot be found fault with in any manner. 8. Even before this court, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to say that the award of the labour court setting aside the orders of dismissal is not sustainable. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that having ordered for reinstatement, the labour court ought not to have ordered for payment of back wages. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that ordering payment of back wages is not automatic. According to him, it is the duty of the workmen to plead and prove to the satisfaction of the labour court that they were not elsewhere employed gainfully during the interregnum period. For this purpose, the learned counsel relies on a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Sidhartha Chakraborty, 2007 (4) LLN 546. In the said case, according to the learned counsel, there was neither any pleading nor any proof that the workmen were gainfully employed elsewhere during the interregnum period. Therefore, the labour court was not right in ordering payment of back wages. But, the learned counsel for the workmen would contend that the dismissal of the workmen in contravention of Section 33(2)(b) of the ID act would make the order void ab initio. If the order of dismissal is set aside on any other ground, then, it may be contended that payment of back wages is not automatic. According to the learned counsel, in the instant cases, where the dismissal is not void ab initio for contravention of Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act, the payment of back wages is automatic. 9. If the order of dismissal is set aside on any other ground, then, it may be contended that payment of back wages is not automatic. According to the learned counsel, in the instant cases, where the dismissal is not void ab initio for contravention of Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act, the payment of back wages is automatic. 9. In my considered opinion, the said contention of the learned counsel for the workmen cannot be accepted. In Jaipur Zila Shakarai Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd's case, case cited supra, the question referred for answer by the Constitution Bench as found in paragraph 1 is as follows:-"If the approval is not granted under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, whether the order of dismissal becomes ineffective from the date it was passed or from the date of non-approval of the order of dismissal and whether failure to make application under Section 33(2)(b) would not render the order of dismissal inoperative?" 2. Finding conflict of views expressed by Benches of three learned Judges of this court on the question, the Reference is made." 10. The said question has been answered in paragraph 18 as follows:-"18. In view of what is stated above, we respectfully agree with and endorse the view taken in the case of Straw Board and Tata Iron & Steel Co. and further state that the view expressed in Punjab Beverages on the question is not the correct view. The question raised in the beginning of this judgement is answered accordingly." Thus the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not held in the said case that the order of dismissal passed in contravention of Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act is void ab initio and instead, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is only inoperative and the same is, therefore, liable to be set aside. In view of the said decision, I hold that while setting aside the orders of dismissal passed in contravention of Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act, the labour court is required to further see whether the workmen had pleaded and proved that they were not employed elsewhere gainfully for the purposes of a direction for payment of back wages. In this case, admittedly, there is neither pleading nor proof that the workmen were not employed gainfully. In this case, admittedly, there is neither pleading nor proof that the workmen were not employed gainfully. Therefore, the award of the labour court directing the management to pay back wages is liable to be interfered with. 11. In the result, all the writ petitions are allowed in part in the following terms:- (i) the award of the labour court setting aside the orders of dismissal of the workmen and ordering reinstatement with continuity of service is confirmed. (ii) that part of the award directing the management to pay back wages to the workmen for the interregnum period alone is set aside. No costs.