JUDGMENT : Paresh Upadhyay, J. Rule. Mr.Brahmbhatt, learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent no.1. 2. Challenge in this petition is made by the Employer to the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 30.11.2013 recorded on Approval Application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 being Application (I.T.) No.283 of 2005 in Reference (I.T.) No.37 of 2000. The Tribunal has rejected the said approval application. 3. The respondent workman was working with the petitioner Corporation as Conductor. He was under the orders of posting at the Chotila Depot. He was dismissed from the service for the proved misconduct vide order dated 28.06.2005. The approval was sought by the petitioner Corporation from the Tribunal on the same date. The said approval is rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.11.2013. It is this order which is challenged by the Employer before this Court in this petition. 4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Both the learned advocates have taken this Court through the material on record. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner Corporation has submitted that, in view of the provision of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the inquiry as contemplated by the Tribunal could not have been as required under the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted that the reasons recorded by the Tribunal clearly suggest that the said inquiry was undertaken as if it was under Section 10 of the Act. It is submitted that looking from any angle, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are inconsistent with the facts on record. There is complete misreading of the provision of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act by the Tribunal. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Cholan Roadways Ltd., v. G. Thirugnanasambandam, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 241 . It is submitted that, the impugned order be interfered with and the approval application be allowed. 6. On the other hand, Mr.Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the respondent workman has submitted that the workman was not keeping good health and he was transferred from one place to another place by the petitioner Corporation and this was the case of the victimisation. It is submitted that, the impugned order be interfered with and the approval application be allowed. 6. On the other hand, Mr.Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the respondent workman has submitted that the workman was not keeping good health and he was transferred from one place to another place by the petitioner Corporation and this was the case of the victimisation. It is submitted that all sorts of illegality were committed by the Employer and the Tribunal has rightly not granted the approval. It is further contended that not even prima facie case was made out by the Employer. Further the superior Authority i.e. the Divisional Controller had given instructions to initiate the departmental inquiry, the Depot Manager who had made report - himself had conducted the inquiry and had passed the final order punishing the workman. The Authority had even not heard the workman. It is submitted that under these circumstances, the approval has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Lalla Ram v. Management of D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd. & another, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1004 . It is submitted that this petition be dismissed. 7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds as under. 7.1 Firstly it is to be noted that the Tribunal was exercising its powers under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The relevant part of the said provision reads as under. "33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings. (1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before b [an arbitrator or] a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding before a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall, - (a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceeding; or (b) for any misconduct connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, any workman concerned in such dispute, save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending. (2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance with the standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute, b [or, where there are no such standing orders, in accordance with the terms of the contract, whether express or implied, between him and the workman], (a) alter, in regard to any matter not connected with the dispute, the conditions of service applicable to that workman immediately before the commencement of such proceeding; or (b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, that workman; Provided that no such workman shall be discharged or dismissed, unless he has been paid wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer....." 7.2 The workman was dismissed from the service vide order dated 28.06.2005, for the misconduct for which the departmental inquiry was conducted against him by the Corporation. The Tribunal has taken note of the facts in detail in the impugned order. Reference needs to be made to the documents at Exh.37, as referred to in para:9 of the impugned order. 7.3 If the facts on hand, as recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order are kept in view, vis a vis the above quoted provision of law, this Court finds that, all the ingredients of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act stand complied with and there was no reason for the Tribunal to reject the approval. If the reasons recorded by the Tribunal for refusing approval are considered, I am afraid, whether the same could be sustained even if the inquiry was under Section 10 of the Act. Suffice it to hold that the provision of Section 33(2)(b) are duly complied with by the petitioner Corporation and there was no occasion for the Tribunal to reject the said application. 7.4 Be it noted that the workman had not participated in the inquiry at all and therefore other contentions put forward before this Court in this petition would not help the petitioner, since the said inquiry is not under Section 10 of the Act. 7.4 Be it noted that the workman had not participated in the inquiry at all and therefore other contentions put forward before this Court in this petition would not help the petitioner, since the said inquiry is not under Section 10 of the Act. At this juncture, it is noted that, the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Cholan Roadways Ltd. v. G. Thirugnanasambandam, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 241 as relied by learned advocate for the petitioner Corporation would apply with full force in the present case. On the other hand, the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Lalla Ram v. Management of D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd. & another, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1004 which is relied by the learned advocate for the respondent would not take the case of the workman any further, on facts so also in view of the Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 7.5 Considering the totality, this Court finds that, the impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside and the Approval Application filed by the Corporation needs to be allowed. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed. 8.1 This petition is allowed. 8.2 The impugned order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 30.11.2013 recorded on Application (I.T.) No.283 of 2005 in Reference (I.T.) No.37 of 2000 is quashed and set aside. 8.3 The approval application filed by the petitioner Corporation under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on which the impugned order was passed, is allowed. 8.4 Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. Writ Petition allowed.