JUDGMENT : V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 26.02.2014, made in W.P.(MD)No.1228 of 2014. 2. The appellants are respondents in W.P(MD).No.1228 of 2014. The respondent herein filed the said Writ Petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the appellants herein to re-instate him in service with continuity of service, with back wages and all other attendant and monetary benefits, in the light of the order passed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], in A.P. No.223 of 2011, on 27.12.2012, rejecting the Approval Petition, filed by the second appellant. 3. According to the respondent, he joined as a Conductor in the services of appellants on 24.10.1989 and was promoted as Special Grade Conductor and continued to work without any remarks. While so, the appellants Corporation dismissed the respondent from service on 11.07.2011. After dismissal, the appellants filed Approval Petition in A.P. No.223 of 2011 under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. The said application was dismissed by order dated 27.12.2012. 4. The respondent filed W.P.(MD) No. 1228 of 2014, seeking a direction to the appellants to reinstate him with continuity of service with back-wages and all other attendant and monetary and other service benefits. 5. The appellants did not file any counter affidavit. The learned Single Judge, considering the materials available on record and the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent and following the order passed by this Court, in W.P. (MD) No. 9763 of 2013, allowed the writ petition. 6. Against, the said order dated 26.02.2014, the appellants have filed the present appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants contended; (i) that the approval petition was dismissed on the ground that charges levelled against the respondent were not proved; (ii) that the authority under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, has no power to decide the said issue and also has no power to interfere with the evidence taken in the disciplinary proceedings. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants contended; (i) that the approval petition was dismissed on the ground that charges levelled against the respondent were not proved; (ii) that the authority under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, has no power to decide the said issue and also has no power to interfere with the evidence taken in the disciplinary proceedings. The authority has to decide the issue only on the basis of the evidence let in by the Management; (iii) that the authority failed to see that the appellants have proved the charges levelled against the respondent; (iv) that the learned Single Judge did not give any opportunity to the appellants to challenge the order dated 27.12.2012, by which authority rejected A.P. No.223 of 2011, for permission to dismiss the respondent; and (v) that the learned Single Judge did not consider the fact that respondent has no vested right to get reinstatement with continuity of services with back wages and other attendant and service benefits. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellants did not challenge the order of rejection of Approval Petition. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back-wages. The order of the learned Single Judge, is valid and prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal. 9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. Before giving effect to the order dismissing the respondent from service, the appellants must obtain approval from competent authority, as per Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. The application filed by appellants in A.P. No.223 of 2011, for approval, was rejected. The appellants did not challenge the said order. Thus, the said order dated 27.12.2012, has become final. 11. In the circumstances, learned Single Judge, considering the order passed by this Court, made in W.P.(MD) No. 9763 of 2013, allowed the Writ Petition. The relevant paragraph of the said order reads as follows:- "4. The facts are not in dispute. Admittedly, the approval sought for by the respondent No. 2, under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, was rejected. The said decision of the authority, constituted under the Act, has become final. As a consequence, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be give effect to the order passed by them against the petitioner. The facts are not in dispute. Admittedly, the approval sought for by the respondent No. 2, under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, was rejected. The said decision of the authority, constituted under the Act, has become final. As a consequence, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be give effect to the order passed by them against the petitioner. In other words, the petitioner continues to be an employee of the respondents corporation. The Hon'ble Apex Court in M.D., Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. Neethivilangan Kumbakonam, (2001) 9 SCC 99 , after considering the similar issue, was pleased to hold as follows:- "15. From the conspectus of the views taken in the decisions referred to above the position is manifest that while the employer has the discretion to initiate a departmental inquiry and pass an order of dismissal or discharge against the workman the order remains in an inchoate state till the employer obtains order of approval from the Tribunal. By passing the order of discharge or dismissal de facto the relationship of employer and employee may be ended but not the de jure relationship for that could happen only when the Tribunal accords its approval. 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 under Section 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. 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, even though he may be subsequently placed under suspension and an inquiry initiated against him." 12. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and also the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court referred to therein, we find that the said issue has been well settled by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Judge did not give any opportunity to the appellants to challenge the order dated 27.12.2012, dismissing the A.P. No.223 of 2011, is untenable. For more than two years from the date of dismissal of the Approval Petition, the appellants did not take any steps to challenge the said order. The learned Single Judge has considered all aspects in proper perspective and in view of the Judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, allowed the writ petition. We, therefore, find no reason or circumstance warranting interference with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. 13. The Writ Appeal is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.