JUDGMENT K. Harilal, J. 1. The petitioner is the proprietor and Manager of a coffee and pepper plantation, by name "Portland Estate" and respondents 1 to 4 are the workers in the said estate. The petitioner initiated disciplinary action against respondents 1 to 4, on two charges. The first charge/relates to the forcible burial of the dead body of one worker's mother, in the premises of the estate/without the consent of the petitioner. One Smt. 'Subbammar, the mother of a worker by name 'Ganesan', passed away on 09.09.2008. According to the petitioner, he offered to meet the expenses for the burial of the dead body, at the nearby burial ground or to have the body transported and buried at her native place in Tamil Nadu. But, respondents 1 to 4 refused to accept the said offer, and thereafter, they, with some other outsiders, on 10.09.2008 at about 2.30 p.m., in disobedience to the instructions of the petitioner, cut and removed certain yielding coffee plants forcibly and by threat buried the dead body of 'Subbamma P., in the estate premises, where there was no burial ground or no portion of land was set apart for burial of dead bodies. Ext. P1 charge sheet dated 18.09.2008 had been issued against respondents 1 to 4 on this count. Secondly, respondents 1 to 4 on 25.08.2008 at about 12 noon left their work unauthorisedly and obstructed the work of two other workers namely ' Jayakkodi' and 'Joy', abused them with filthy language, attempted to assault and threatened them. Ext. P2 charge sheet dated 15.10.2008 had been served on respondents 1 to 4 on this count. 2. The domestic enquiry, on both the above changes, had been conducted by the Management and finally the Management came to the conclusion that the charge Nos. 1 and 2 above are of grave in nature and the workers should be dismissed from service and hence they ordered accordingly. Ext. P3 is the order of dismissal dated 28.09.2011 sent by registered post to the 1st respondent. 3. On the same day of issuance of Ext. P3, the petitioner had also submitted an application under S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')} before the 5th respondent seeking approval of the action taken against respondents 1 to 4. Ext. P4 is the application, seeking approval for the dismissal of the 1st respondent. On the same day of issuance of Ext. P3, the petitioner had also submitted an application under S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')} before the 5th respondent seeking approval of the action taken against respondents 1 to 4. Ext. P4 is the application, seeking approval for the dismissal of the 1st respondent. After considering the said application, the 5th respondent had passed Exts. P5 to P8 orders rejecting the application seeking approval of dismissal, in respect of respondents 1 to 4, on the ground that the dispute connected with the first charge, the forcible burial of the dead body of Ganesan's mother was pending before the Conciliation Officer and that S. 33(2)(b) of the Act permits the employer, to punish a workman, for a misconduct not connected with the dispute pending before the Conciliation Officer. Since the dispute relating to forcible burial of the dead body was pending before the Conciliation Officer, when the dismissal order was passed, the dismissal of respondents 1 to 4 does not fall under S. 33(2)(b) of the Act, and thereby, the approval cannot be granted to the said dismissal orders. 4. According to the petitioner, long after the commencement of the disciplinary action against respondents 1 to 4, he had been served with Ext. P9 letter dated 07.10.2010 alongwith a complaint sent by 17 workers of a Trade Union, by name 'P.T.T. Union', by the 5th respondent, seeking his explanation to the queries from the Office of the Chief Minister, on the said complaint made by the members of the Trade Union. Thereupon, the petitioner had submitted Ext. P10 detailed reply pointing out the falsity of the allegations. Thereafter, the petitioner had not received any intimation regarding any further steps taken on Ext. P9 complaint and to the knowledge of the petitioner Ext. P9 complaint had not culminated in any industrial dispute or conciliation proceedings. Therefore, the stand taken by the 5th respondent that the 'dispute' in connection with the first charge levelled against respondents 1 to 4, which culminated in dismissal, was pending before the Conciliation Officer, at the time when the dismissal order was passed, is absolutely wrong and unsustainable. It is with these averments the petitioner had filed this Writ Petition with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari calling for Ext. It is with these averments the petitioner had filed this Writ Petition with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari calling for Ext. P5 to P8 and quash the same and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 5th respondent to grant approval to the punishment of dismissal imposed on respondents 1 to 4. 5. The 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit, disputing the averments in the Writ Petition and contending that a conciliation proceeding was pending before him, in respect of the dispute in connection with misconduct, for which respondents 1 to 4 were dismissed. Ext. P9 complaint filed by the substantial members of the Trade Union before the Minister, seeking the remedy against the harassment, ill treatment, in retaliation of the forcible burial of the dead body of 'Subbammal' gave rise to a dispute, which culminated in conciliation proceedings. Even though, the first conference was scheduled, both parties failed to appear on that day in the conference and further proceeding was pending, awaiting next conference. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 in extenso. 7. The summary of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no conciliation proceeding in respect of any industrial dispute, in connection with the charges, for which respondents 1 to 4 were found guilty of misconduct and dismissed, was pending before any of the authorities, under the Act, at the time, when the order dismissing them was passed. In other words, the complaint said to have been filed before the Chief Minister, through 'Sutharya Keralam' did not give rise to an 'industrial dispute' contemplated under S. 2K of the Act and to the knowledge of the petitioner no proceedings were pending in this connection. 8. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the complaint, alleging revengeful attitude of the management, in retaliation of the forcible burial of the dead body of 'Subbammal', in the premises of the Estate, filed before the Chief Minister gave rise to an industrial dispute, as contemplated under S. 2K of the Act and the conciliation proceeding in this respect was pending before the 5th respondent, the Conciliation Officer, when respondents 1 to 4 were dismissed from service, on the charge in connection with the above allegation. 9. 9. In view of the rival submissions, made at the Bar, the point to be considered is, whether any conciliation proceeding in respect of the industrial dispute in connection with the forcible burial of the dead body of Ganesan's mother, was pending before any of the authorities specified under S. 33 of the Act, when the orders, dismissing respondents 1 to 4, were passed by the petitioner. 10. It is not disputed that the first charge, for which respondents 1 to 4 were found guilty of misconduct and dismissed, relates to the forcible burial of the dead body of 'Subbammal', in the premises of the estate, in disobedience to the denial of permission, for the same, and in the complaint filed before the Minister, through 'Sutharya Keralam', 17 workers of the estate, including respondents 1 to 4 made an allegation that the Management is taking vengeance towards them, after the burial of the dead body of Ganesan's mother, without the permission of the Management and they sought for interference of the Authorities to redress their grievance. 11. Here, in Ext. P9 complaint, the grievance projected is that the Management has been mentally harassing the workers, by instituting false and fabricated cases against the workers and abusing them with filthy language publicly in a revengeful manner, in retaliation of the forcible burial of the dead body of 'Subbammal', in the premises of the estate, without permission of the petitioner. In addition to that, so many other allegations of ill-treatment and harassment are made in the complaint. Thus, I find that the grievance highlighted in Ext. P9 shows differences of opinion between the Management and the workers, in connection with the employment and conditions of labour of workers. In short, the allegations in Ext. P9 constitute an 'industrial dispute', as contemplated under S. 2K of the Act. Hence, I reject the contention that Ext. P9 did not give rise to 'dispute', as contemplated under S. 2K of the Act. 12. The next question to be considered is, whether the misconduct, for which, respondents 1 to 4 are found guilty and dismissed is one connected with the said dispute. Hence, I reject the contention that Ext. P9 did not give rise to 'dispute', as contemplated under S. 2K of the Act. 12. The next question to be considered is, whether the misconduct, for which, respondents 1 to 4 are found guilty and dismissed is one connected with the said dispute. The specific allegation for which the first charge was framed is that respondents 1 to 4 along with the outsiders and Panchayat members forcibly cut and removed the yielding coffee trees and by threat buried the dead body of 'Subbammal', in the premises of the estate, without permission of the Management and also in disobedience to the orders of the Management. It is pertinent to note that mere connection along with misconduct for which the workers were dismissed and the dispute pending before the Conciliation Officer for conciliation, is sufficient to deny the approval of dismissal under S. 33(2)(b) of the Act. On an analysis of the charge and the dispute raised in Ext. P9 complaint, indisputably, it can be said that the said charge for which respondents 1 to 4 are found guilty and dismissed, is directly connected with the dispute raised in Ext. P9 complaint and thereby, the dismissal is barred under S. 33(2)(b) of the Act. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the dismissal of an employee for any misconduct connected with the dispute, during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings is not absolutely barred by S. 33(1) of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the dismissal can be made in such cases with the express permission of the authority before which the proceedings are pending. If that be so, even if, the application was filed under S. 33(2) (b) of the Act, the 5th respondent would have considered the application and granted permission, if the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the dismissal thereon are justifiable. 14. Here, the question is, whether permission can be granted for dismissal of a worker for misconduct connected with dispute, pending for conciliation, on an application filed under S. 33(2)(b) of the Act. Let us examine the statutory mandate under Sections 33(1)(b) and 33(2)(b) of the Act. S. 33(1)(b) of the Act deals with dismissal on misconduct connected with the dispute; whereas, S. 33(2)(b) of the Act deals with dismissal, on misconduct, not connected with the dispute, for which conciliation proceeding is pending. Let us examine the statutory mandate under Sections 33(1)(b) and 33(2)(b) of the Act. S. 33(1)(b) of the Act deals with dismissal on misconduct connected with the dispute; whereas, S. 33(2)(b) of the Act deals with dismissal, on misconduct, not connected with the dispute, for which conciliation proceeding is pending. According to S. 33(1)(b) of the Act, no employer shall on any misconduct, connected with dispute, discharge or punish any workman concerned in such a dispute save with express permission of the authority, before which the conciliation proceeding is pending. 15. But, according to S. 33(1)(b) of the Act, no employer shall on any misconduct not connected with dispute discharge or punish the workman, unless an application has been made to the authority before which the proceeding is pending, for approval of the action taken by the employer. More precisely and clearly, in the case of dismissal on misconduct connected with the dispute, pending for conciliation before the Conciliation Officer, prior permission of the Conciliation Officer is required before passing the dismissal order. But, in the case of dismissal, on misconduct not connected with the dispute, for which conciliation is pending, subsequent approval of the authority, before which conciliation proceeding is pending, is sufficient. 16. In my view, there is vast difference between dismissal on misconduct connected with the dispute, while conciliation proceeding is pending and dismissal on misconduct not connected with the dispute, pending before the Conciliation Officer. In the case of former, strict scrutiny of the Conciliation Officer is required before passing the dismissal order, as the dismissal is on misconduct connected with the dispute pending before him. But, in the latter case, since the dismissal is on misconduct not connected with the dispute, the subsequent ratification of the Conciliation Officer is sufficient. Considering this vast difference, the Legislature was so conscious to prescribe different procedures under Sections 33(1)(b) and 33(2)(b) of the Act. 17. Similarly, there is vast difference in prior permission and subsequent approval, when Legislature made it obligatory that prior permission must be obtained before doing an act, the act can be done only, after obtaining permission and subsequent approval, after doing the said act cannot be equated with the former. 17. Similarly, there is vast difference in prior permission and subsequent approval, when Legislature made it obligatory that prior permission must be obtained before doing an act, the act can be done only, after obtaining permission and subsequent approval, after doing the said act cannot be equated with the former. Therefore, I hold that even though, the permission can be granted for dismissal on misconduct connected with the dispute under S. 33(1)(b) of the Act, it cannot be granted, after the dismissal, by way of approval on an application, under S. 33(1)(b) of the Act, seeking approval, even if, the findings of the enquiry report are justifiable. 18. Even though, the petitioner contended that he had not received any intimation, regarding any further steps being taken on Ext. P9, going by the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent, it is seen that after the receipt of Ext. P10 explanation of the petitioner, on Ext. P9 complaint, the District Labour Officer, Idukki forwarded the same to the Labour Commissioner and the Labour Commissioner, as per letter dated 07.12.2010 called for the explanation of the then, Deputy Labour Officer, Peermade, for having sent a report upon Ext. P9 complaint, without conducting spot enquiry and personal verification. Further, the Labour Commissioner directed the 5th respondent, to conduct a spot enquiry in the estate and take depositions of the workers. Thereupon, the 5th respondent conducted an enquiry on Ext. P9 and sent a report to the Labour Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, as per letter dated 28.02.2011. In that report also, the first charge relating to the forcible burial of the dead body, without the permission of the Management found a place, as the reason for the labour problems and it was also reported that the Management of the estate has been violating the Labour laws and denying the rights and benefits of the workers, prescribed under the Labour laws. Thereafter, on the direction of the Labour Commissioner, the conciliation proceedings restarted and a conference of the parties to the dispute was scheduled to be held on 11.04.2011. But, the conference could not be held, since both parties did not turn up to the meeting. After that, the post of Conciliation Officer was vacant for a period of five months and hence, no conciliation conference could be held and the present Conciliation Officer took charge of the office on 13.09.2011. On 30.09.2011, Exts. But, the conference could not be held, since both parties did not turn up to the meeting. After that, the post of Conciliation Officer was vacant for a period of five months and hence, no conciliation conference could be held and the present Conciliation Officer took charge of the office on 13.09.2011. On 30.09.2011, Exts. P5, P6 and P8 applications filed under S. 33(2)(b) of the Act, seeking approval of the dismissal order passed by the Management, was received and in the order dismissing respondents 1 to 4. 19. Was the petitioner aware of the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, on Ext. P9 complaint? Indisputably, the application like Ext. P4 is filed under S. 33(2)(b) of the Act, seeking approval of the dismissal order. If no industrial dispute was pending before the Conciliation Officer, what prompted the petitioner to file an application under S. 33(2)(d) of the Act, seeking approval of the order, dismissing respondents 1 to 4. Even though, the petitioner contended that to his knowledge, no further proceedings were pending in connection with Ext. P9 complaint, to which he had sent Ext. P10 reply, the application under S. 33(2)(b) of the Act, seeking approval, gives rise to an inference that he was fully aware of the pendency of the conciliation proceedings before the Conciliation Officer, in respect of the dispute raised In Ext. P9 complaint. The explanation that the petitioner had with abundant caution filed an application under S. 33(2)(b) of the Act also cannot be swallowed, without a pinch of salt. 20. Even if the version of the petitioner that he had no knowledge about further proceedings on Ext. P9 complaint and Ext. P10 reply, certainly, he should have enquired about the further proceedings on Exts. P9 and P10 before proceeding with the disciplinary action and the first charge, which found a place in Ext. P9. In the above view also, I am not inclined to believe the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the pendency of the dispute in connection with the first charge. 21. It is pertinent to note that the sequence of proceedings occurred, after the receipt of Ext. P10 reply sent by the petitioner and narrated in the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent are not denied by the petitioner, by preferring a reply affidavit Thus, the further proceedings initiated on Ext. P10 reply stands undisputed. 21. It is pertinent to note that the sequence of proceedings occurred, after the receipt of Ext. P10 reply sent by the petitioner and narrated in the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent are not denied by the petitioner, by preferring a reply affidavit Thus, the further proceedings initiated on Ext. P10 reply stands undisputed. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the conciliation proceedings initiated on Ext. P9 and narrated elaborately in the counter affidavit. 22. On receipt of Exts. P5 to P8, the 5th respondent conducted a hearing, as contemplated under S. 33(d) of the Act and found that, when respondents 1 to 4 were dismissed on misconduct, a dispute in connection with the said misconduct was pending for conciliation before the Conciliation Officer and thereby, the approval was barred under S. 33(1)(b) of the Act. In the above analysis, the 5th respondent is justified in passing Exts. P5 to P8 orders. There is no illegality or impropriety in Exts. P5 to P8 orders and I do not find any reason to interfere with Exts. P5 to P8 orders. Hence, the reliefs sought for in this Writ Petition will stand rejected. At the same time, it is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of further proceedings, in the dispute, which are pending before the Conciliation Officer and if no settlement could be arrived at, the dispute, including the alleged misconduct, which culminated in dismissal, can be adjudicated under S. 10(1)(d) of the Act. This Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly.