JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, J. 1. This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 13.2.2008 made in W.P. No. 2697 of 2007 insofar as restricting entitlement of back-wages from 5.1.2007 and for a direction to the respondent to reinstate the appellant with full back wages from 16.1.2004. The case of the respondents before the learned single Judge was that the appellant was employed as Conductor on daily wage basis and he participated in an illegal strike and absented from duty without permission on 13.11.2002, 14.11.2002, 17.11.2002 to 19.11.2002 and 21.11.2002. Disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant by issuing a charge memo and after enquiry, the charge was found proved and a punishment of dismissal was imposed on 16.1.2004. Approval petition No. 200 of 2004 u/s 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was filed by the respondent Management and the same was rejected on 1.9.2006. Approval was sought for as one of the demand of the workman was pending in conciliation proceeding. The said rejection order dated 1.9.2006 was challenged in the writ petition. 2. The learned single Judge upheld the rejection order dated 1.9.2006 and ordered reinstatement of the appellant with effect from 5.1.2007 and directed to pay all back wages from 5.1.2007. The management has not preferred any appeal against the order of the learned single Judge. The appellant/workman, having been denied back wages from the date of dismissal i.e. 16.1.2004 to 4.1.2007, has filed this writ appeal contending that the appellant was not employed elsewhere during the period in which he was kept out of employment and the Approval petition No. 200 of 2004 having been rejected, appellant is deemed to be in service for all purposes, including back wages, and no contra evidence was produced by the management to show that the appellant was otherwise employed to deny back wages. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondents. 4. It is not in dispute that the rejection of approval petition dated 1.9.2006 has become final as the management has not chosen to challenge the order of the learned single Judge, upholding the order rejecting approval. 5. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondents. 4. It is not in dispute that the rejection of approval petition dated 1.9.2006 has become final as the management has not chosen to challenge the order of the learned single Judge, upholding the order rejecting approval. 5. The issue as to, how the workman is to be treated after rejection of approval petition filed u/s 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in M.D. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation vs. Neethivilangan Kumbakonam, (2001) 9 SCC 99 . In the said decision the Supreme Court followed its earlier decision reported in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. vs. S.N. Modak, AIR 1966 SC 380 , wherein it is held thus: But it cannot be overlooked that for the period between the date on which the appellant passed its order in question against the respondent and the date when the ban was lifted by the final determination of the main dispute, the order cannot be said to be valid unless it receives the approval of the Tribunal. In other words, the order being incomplete and inchoate until the approval is obtained, cannot effectively terminate the relationship of the employer and the employee between the appellant and the respondent; and so, even if the main industrial dispute is finally decided, the question about the validity of the order would still have to be tried and if the approval is not accorded by the Tribunal, the employer would be bound to treat the respondent as its employee and pay him his full wages for the period even though the appellant may subsequently proceed to terminate the respondent's services. Therefore, the argument that the proceedings if continued beyond the date of the final decision of the main industrial dispute would become futile and meaningless, cannot be accepted. Following the said decision the Supreme Court in paragraph 16 of the decision reported in T.N. State Transport Corporation vs. Neethivilangan, Kumbakonam (supra) held as follows: 16...........The relationship of employer and employee is not legally terminated till approval of discharge or dismissal is given by the Tribunal. Following the said decision the Supreme Court in paragraph 16 of the decision reported in T.N. State Transport Corporation vs. Neethivilangan, Kumbakonam (supra) held as follows: 16...........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 u/s 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............ 6. As stated in the previous paragraph, the respondent has not established the factum of employment of the appellant elsewhere, which alone can be a reason to deny back wages. In view of the above, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed with a direction to the respondent Management to pay back wages to the appellant from 16.1.2004 to 4.1.2007, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.