JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. The petitioner, by way of present writ petition, assails the order dated 27/03/2017 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking approval of the removal order passed against the respondent-workman has been considered and rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-workman was working at the factory run by the petitioner-company. Due to his unwarranted activities and indiscipline, he was served with a charge-sheet on 22/12/2010 wherein it was alleged that the respondent-workman had indulged in damaging reputation and respect of the higher officials and had defamed them by making misleading complaints to the Government officers, President of India, Prime Minister of India, Chief Minister and different political parties. The allegations were also levelled about his having remained absent from duty during duty hours and also indulging in spreading dissatisfaction amongst the workmen of the company. 3. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was allowed to obtain copies of the documents which he required and the enquiry officer allowed him to cross examine the witnesses of the management and also recorded his statement and defence. The principles of natural justice were observed during the course of enquiry and the enquiry officer submitted his report on 18/03/2011 finding the charges proved against the respondent. Copy of the enquiry report was served upon the workman and thereafter on the basis of the enquiry report, the workman was dismissed from service vide order dated 30/3/2011. A cheque of an amount of Rs. 16,234/-was also served upon the respondent-workman and on the same day, the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 was moved before the Tribunal seeking approval. 4. A reply to the application was filed by the workman objecting that the dismissal order, payment of wages as well as the application for approval had not been taken up simultaneously. It was stated by the workman that the conciliation proceedings were pending before the learned Divisional Labour Commissioner and in view of Section 33-A of the Act of 1947, the dismissal order is illegal and unjustified. It was also stated that the application was not in proper form. 5. It was stated by the workman that the conciliation proceedings were pending before the learned Divisional Labour Commissioner and in view of Section 33-A of the Act of 1947, the dismissal order is illegal and unjustified. It was also stated that the application was not in proper form. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conciliation proceedings were not legally instituted proceedings as there was no existing industrial dispute. The complaint was with regard to adoption of unfair labour practice for which the conciliation proceedings did not have any jurisdiction. However, it is submitted that the Tribunal vide order dated 27/03/2017 (which is impugned herein) refused to grant approval. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has fallen in error by holding that the application for approval is not in accordance with Rule 60 of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. 6. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-workman, while supporting the award passed by the Tribunal, submits that since no permission was sought under Section 33(1) of the Act of 1947, the Tribunal has rightly reached to the conclusion. It is also committed that the application ought to have been moved before the learned Joint Labour Commissioner where the conciliation proceedings were pending on the day when the removal order was passed. It has been observed that the proceedings were pending with the Joint Labour Commissioner after later point in time i.e. 25/07/2011 while the removal order has been passed on 30/03/2011. It is further submitted that the said dispute which was pending before the Joint Labour Commissioner, resulted in failure report dated 05/08/2011 and the State Government declined to refer the dispute to the Labour Court vide its order dated 04/01/2012 stating that the dispute is not an industrial dispute and is rather an unfair labour practice for which separate provisions under the Act of 1947 would. Thus the submission that the conciliation officer was not having jurisdiction to conduct the proceedings and the requirement of submitting application before the Conciliation officer was wholly misconceived. 7. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the material available on record. 8. Before dealing with the factual aspects, it would be appropriate to look at the provisions of Section 33 of the Act of 1947 and Rule 60 of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules 1958 which provide under:- "Section 33. 7. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the material available on record. 8. Before dealing with the factual aspects, it would be appropriate to look at the provisions of Section 33 of the Act of 1947 and Rule 60 of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules 1958 which provide under:- "Section 33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings-(1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding before an arbitration or a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall-s (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 workmen 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 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, or 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. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), no employer shall, during the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, take any action against any protected workman concerned in such dispute- (a) by altering, to the prejudice of such protected workman, the conditions of service applicable to him immediately before the commencement of such proceedings; or (b) by discharging or punishing, whether by dismissal or otherwise, such protected workman, save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending. Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section, a 'protected workman', in relation to an establishment, means a workman who, being a member of the executive or other office bearer of a registered trade connected with the establishment, is recognised as such in accordance with rules made in this behalf. (4) In every establishment, the number of workman to be recognised as protected workman for the purposes of sub-section (3) shall be one percent of the total number of workmen employed therein subject to a minimum number of five protected workmen and a maximum number of one hundred protected workmen and for the aforesaid purpose, the appropriate Government may make rules providing for the 45 distribution of such protected workmen among various trade unions, if any, connected with the establishment and the manner in which the workmen may be chosen and recognised as protected workmen. (5) Where an employer makes an application to a conciliation officer, Board, an arbitrator, a labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal under the proviso to sub-section (2) for approval of the action taken by him, the authority concerned shall, without delay, hear such application and pass, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such application, such order in relation thereto as it deems fit: Provided that where any such authority considers it necessary or expedient so to do, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as it may think fit: Provided further that no proceedings before any such authority shall lapse merely on the ground that any period specified in this sub-section had expired without such proceedings being completed." Rule 60. Application under section 33(1) - An employer intending to obtain the express permission in writing of the Conciliation Officer, Board, Labour Court or Tribunal, as the case may be under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of Section 33 shall present an application in Form J in triplicate to such Conciliation Officer, Board, Labour Court or Tribunal and shall file along with the application as many copies thereof, as there are opposite parties. (2) An employer seeking the approval of the Conciliation Officer, Board Labour Court or Tribunal, as the case may be, of any action taken by him under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 33 shall present an application in form K in triplicate to such Conciliation Officer, Board, Labour Court or Tribunal, and shall file along with the application as many copies thereof, as there are opposite parties. (3) Every application under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) shall be verified at the foot by the employer making it some or other person proved to the satisfaction of the Conciliation Officer, Board, Labour Court or Tribunal to be acquainted with the facts of case. (4) The person verifying shall specify by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the application, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true. (5) The verification shall be signed by the person making it and shall state the date on which and the place at which it was verified." A look at the award and the documents which have been placed on record clearly shows that the application for seeking approval is not in conformity with Rule 60 of the Rules of 1958 as it does not mention as to the person who has verified the application. It has been noted by the learned Tribunal that the authority for representing has been given to one Shri R.K. Saboo, Senior Vice Chairman. In the authority letter dated 30/03/2011, an FSL report was obtained with regard to the handwriting of Shri Saboo which was found to be forged. Thus, the entire edifies of the petitioner's application is based on a forged authority letter dated 30/03/2011. An affidavit in this respect has been submitted by the concerned workman which has not been countered or denied and thus the verification has not been found to be correct. 9. Thus, the entire edifies of the petitioner's application is based on a forged authority letter dated 30/03/2011. An affidavit in this respect has been submitted by the concerned workman which has not been countered or denied and thus the verification has not been found to be correct. 9. Apart from above, it also reveals from the facts of the case that the employer was required to seek written approval from the officer wherein any conciliation or proceedings were pending. The question relating to competence would not arise at that stage. However, there has been no attempt made to move such application under Section 33(1) before the Joint Labour Commissioner, Jaipur Region where conciliation proceedings were pending as required under Section 33(1) of the Act of 1947. On the day when the order was passed, the same were pending. Keeping in view the mandatory provisions under the Act of 1947, the application for seeking approval thus rightly rejected. Admittedly even before this Court even the Government has found a case made out of unfair labour practice. Taking into consideration the allegations which have been levelled against the petitioner which prima-facie are essentially of trivial nature where the management seems to be unhappy with the respondents on having taken up the issue relating to the workmen with them. This Court finds it a fit case where the industrial tribunal has passed order of not approving the application moved before it under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947. That apart, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Shri Ram Gopal Sharma and others, AIR 2002 SC 643 (1), this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 10. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. The order of the Tribunal impugned herein is upheld and the petitioner is now directed to reinstate the respondent-workman with all consequential benefits.