Judgment :- 1. Mr.S.Navaneethan, the learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the first respondent and Mr.P.Kannan Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondent-Metropolitan Transport Corporation in both the writ petitions. 2. The petitioner is one and the same person in both the writ petitions. The petitioner was a selection grade driver in the second respondent-Corporation. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was driving the bus No.17M-Cut service on 27.06.2012 and while it was crossing the Anna Fly Over jumped from the fly over and fell down. Consequent upon the said accident, charge memo was framed as against the petitioner and an enquiry also was conducted. By an order dated 18.10.2012, the petitioner was dismissed from service for the alleged negligence in his duty after following the due procedures. Since at the relevant time, the consideration proceedings was pending before the Commissioner of Labour, an approval application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was sought to be filed before the first respondent Deputy Commissioner of Labour. In pursuant to the said pendency of the dispute, the petitioner was given one month pay, which is the requirement under Section 33 (2) (b) and Form 'T' was also sent to the first respondent. It is not clear, whether the first respondent has already taken the said approval petition on file. It is obvious that the petitioner after getting a copy of the Form 'T' sent to the first respondent has filed the writ petition W.P.No.1244 of 2013 stating that the first respondent should be directed to take the approval petition on file and conduct the case on a day to day basis and dispose of the same within a time frame. 3. In the second writ petition in W.P.No.1245 of 2013, the petitioner has sought for furnishing of a copy of the reports, which were collected during the course of the enquiry in respect of the accident that took place on 27.06.2012. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation. 5. In W.P.No.1244 of 2013, this court is unable to know whether the first respondent has taken the Form T sent by the second respondent dated 18.10.2012 and assigned any approval petition number and issued notice of enquiry to the petitioner. 5. In W.P.No.1244 of 2013, this court is unable to know whether the first respondent has taken the Form T sent by the second respondent dated 18.10.2012 and assigned any approval petition number and issued notice of enquiry to the petitioner. In the absence of any detail being given, as to whether the petition has been taken on file by the first respondent and there being no complaint that the first respondent after taking on file has never conducted any enquiry and after notice to parties they are deliberately dragging the matter, the present writ petition is premature and this court is not inclined to give any such direction as prayed for. The first respondent, who deals with the application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, is undoubtedly a quasi judicial authority and he has to fix his schedule according to his exigency of work and this court even before the approval petition is numbered cannot give any direction in the absence of any such pleading made against the first respondent. 6. Hence, this court is not inclined to entertain the said writ petition. 7. With reference to the second writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.1245 of 2013 seeking for copies of the report from the third respondent Investigation Officer, it is open for the petitioner, if it is available in the public helm, to make an application under Right to Information Act and seek copies of the same. In the absence of any such details, this writ petition is misconceived. 8. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.