Judgment : Writ Petition was dismissed against Respondents 1 and 2 vide Court order dated 12.1.2012. 1. The petitioner is a trade union and the workmen employed by the third respondent University are its members. The petitioner union raised an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 relating to various demands including regularisation of the service of the members of the petitioner union. They apprehended that the members of the petitioner union could be terminated during pendency of the conciliation of the industrial dispute. 2. Hence, they moved this Writ Petition seeking to forbear the third respondent from altering the service conditions of the members of the petitioner union, whose names are given in the Annexure to the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, in any manner, including discontinuance of their service without getting permission under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in respect of the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner union, which are pending conciliation before the second respondent, as dispute No.783 of 2007; further, to direct the second respondent to conciliate and effect settlement; and if no settlement is forthcoming, to submit failure report under Section 12 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act; and in turn, to direct the first respondent to refer the dispute for adjudication before the competent forum. 3. It is now stated by the learned counsel for the third respondent that some of the members of the petitioner union have left the employment and some of them are still in service. Further, it is also stated by the learned counsel that the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union has been referred to the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, and the Tribunal has taken it on its file as I.D.No.14 of 2011 and, in these circumstances, no further adjudication is necessary in this Writ Petition. 4. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner union has submitted that during pendency of the industrial dispute before the Tribunal, the workmen cannot be dismissed from service without getting prior permission/approval from the Industrial Tribunal. 5. I have considered the submissions made by either side. 6. 4. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner union has submitted that during pendency of the industrial dispute before the Tribunal, the workmen cannot be dismissed from service without getting prior permission/approval from the Industrial Tribunal. 5. I have considered the submissions made by either side. 6. It is admitted that an industrial dispute relating to certain demands including regularisation of the service of the members of the petitioner union has been referred to the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, and the Tribunal has taken it on its file as I.D.No.14 of 2011. In such circumstances, no further direction sought for in the Writ Petition to the first respondent to refer the dispute to a competent forum survives for consideration. 7. It is well settled that during pendency of an industrial dispute relating to regularisation of service, if an employer seeks to terminate his workmen, the employer is required to obtain prior permission under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, there is no need to mention that the third respondent shall obtain permission as per the law if they seek to terminate the workmen from service. If the employer seeks dismissal of the workmen on misconduct, then, it is well settled that employer shall obtain approval after the dismissal but not prior permission. It is made clear that the third respondent shall follow the above provisions of law in the event of terminating/dismissing the services of the workmen. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.