Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was working as a driver in the first respondent State owned Transport Corporation having their headquarters at Salem. In this writ petition, the petitioner has chosen to challenge an order passed by the second respondent-the Labour Officer, Salem made in Approval Petition No.52 of 2011 filed by the first respondent, dated 16.9.2011. 2. By the aforesaid order, the second respondent, being the conciliation officer, opined that there was no case for entertaining the approval petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act; the request made by the management was unwarranted and hence, the application was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice on 29.9.2009 asking his explanation as to why he has committed certain misconducts. Thereafter, getting explanation, enquiry was conducted. Basing on the enquiry, a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner did not participate in the enquiry and an ex-parte enquiry was conducted. Thereafter, on 27.7.2010, taking into account the past conduct, the petitioner was given a show cause notice asking him as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner gave an explanation stating that an industrial dispute was pending before the second respondent-the Labour Officer and no approval was obtained in terms of Section 33(1)(a) of the I.D.Act. However, the first respondent by order dated 2.8.2010 dismissed the petitioner from service and since a dispute was pending before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Chennai, and also before the Labour Officer, the management in turn seeks approval in terms of Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D.Act. The petitioner was given one month pay in lieu of notice, as required under Section 33(2) of the I.D.A. The said approval petition was numbered as Approval Petition No.52 of 2011 and notice was issued to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner contended before the officer that the management ought to have declared him as a protected workman and a dispute was pending in the file in Na.Ka.No.1058/2009 and another dispute was pending regarding the allegation that the petitioner was threatened with a forcible transfer, in the file in Na.Ka.No.189/2010. An interim application also was filed before the Salem Labour Court in I.E.S.O.P.No.1 of 2010. An interim application also was filed before the Salem Labour Court in I.E.S.O.P.No.1 of 2010. In the light of the pendency of these disputes, the management ought to have filed an approval petition under Section 33(1)(b) of the I.D.Act and therefore, the present application was in valid, inasmuch as it was filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D.Act. 5. The authority, namely, the first respondent, after taking notice of the stand taken by the second respondent, passed the impugned order dated 29.9.2011, holding that on the day when the management filed the petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D.Act. no conciliation proceedings were pending. The notice, as referred to by the workman, is merely in the format, in which it was stated that an enquiry/conciliation will be held, but only when the authority initiates a conciliation proceedings, the question of any pendency of conciliation will arise. 6. It is not a case where the Union, of which the petitioner was a member, has given a strike notice in terms of Section 22 of the I.D.Act, in which case, there could be a fiction of a deemed conciliation. Pursuant to the order passed by the second respondent, the first respondent informed the petitioner that there was no question of any approval petition being heard by the authority. It is not clear as to why the petitioner, who is an industrial workman and having a right under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D.Act, has not raised a dispute in terms of the provisions of the Act regarding his non-employment. On the other hand, the present attempt to challenge the order of the second respondent holding that there is no conciliation pending so as to invoke the provisions of Section 33 of the Act, does not arise. The reasons given by the officer, namely, in the absence of any effective conciliation before him, he need not entertain an application under Section 33 of the Act, is valid, and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. In fact, the petitioner has been dismissed as early as 2.8.2010 and in the normal course, since the industrial dispute provides for a direct reference for conducting a dispute relating to individual non-employment, the petitioner instead of wasting his time for the last two years, could have raised the dispute, in which event, it could have reached the finality by this time. This is without prejudice to the right of the workman from raising an appropriate dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 7. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.