ORDER : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. 1. The award dated 06.04.2017 is under challenged before this Court whereby under Section 33(C)(2). The wife of the deceased workman has been declared entitled to receive the amount of salary for the period during which the deceased workman would be deemed to be in service, which is in consequence of the rejection of the application seeking approval under Section 33(2) (b) by the Labour Court. The rejection of the order of removal dated 28.07.1998 was passed by the Tribunal on 23.12.2005. The workman had expired on 13.01.2004. The Labour Court by the impugned award has, therefore, assessed the benefits to which the deceased workman was entitled upto 13.01.2004. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said award dated 06.04.2017 proceeds to adjudicate the claim which cannot be made under Section 33(C)(2) and hence is illegal and unjustified as the workman had expired before the order of disapproval. 2. The submissions of the counsel for the petitioners is noted to be rejected, keeping in view of an adjudication already made by the Industrial Tribunal while rejecting the approval application submitted by the petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) on 23.12.2005. 3. In the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal Sharma and Others, AIR 2002 SC 643 : (2002) 2 SCC 244 : LNIND 2002 SC 44 : 2002-I-LLJ-834, wherein the Constitution Bench has held as under : "14. Where an application is made under Section 33(2) (b) proviso, the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer has to examine whether the order of dismissal or discharge is bona fide; whether it was by way of victimization or unfair labour practice; whether the conditions contained in the proviso were complied with or not, etc. If the authority refuses to grant approval obviously it follows that the employee continues to be in service as if order of discharge or dismissal never had been passed. The order of dismissal or discharge passed invoking Section 33(2) (b) dismissing or discharging an employee brings an end of relationship of employer and employee from the date of his dismissal or discharge but that order remains incomplete and remains inchoate as it is subject to approval of the authority under the said provision. The order of dismissal or discharge passed invoking Section 33(2) (b) dismissing or discharging an employee brings an end of relationship of employer and employee from the date of his dismissal or discharge but that order remains incomplete and remains inchoate as it is subject to approval of the authority under the said provision. In other words, this relationship comes to an end de jure only when the authority grants approval. If approval is not given, nothing more is required to be done by the employee, as it will have to be deemed that the order of discharge or dismissal had never been passed. Consequence of it is that the employee is deemed to have continued in service entitling him to all the benefits available. This being the position there is no need of a separate or specific order for his reinstatement. But on the other hand, if approval is given by the authority and if the employee is aggrieved by such an approval, he is entitled to make a complaint under Section 33A challenging the order granting approval on any of the grounds available to him. Section 33A is available only to an employee and is intended to save his time and trouble inasmuch as he can straightaway make a complaint before the very authority where the industrial dispute is already pending between the parties challenging the order of approval instead of making efforts to raise an industrial dispute, get a reference and thereafter adjudication. In this view, it is not correct to say that even though where the order of discharge or dismissal is inoperative for contravention of the mandatory conditions contained in the proviso or where the approval is refused, a workman should still make a complaint under Section 33A and that the order of dismissal or discharge becomes invalid or void only when it is set aside under Section 33A and that till such time he should suffer misery of unemployment in spite of statutory protection given to him by the proviso to Section 33(2)(b). It is not correct to say that where the order of discharge or dismissal becomes inoperative because of contravention of proviso to Section 33(2)(b), Section 33A would be meaningless and futile. The said Section has a definite purpose to serve, as already stated above, enabling an employee to make a complaint, if aggrieved by the order of the approval granted." 4. The said Section has a definite purpose to serve, as already stated above, enabling an employee to make a complaint, if aggrieved by the order of the approval granted." 4. In view thereof, on rejection of the application, the workman would be deemed to be continued in service from the date of termination till he expired. Accordingly, the benefit has to be calculated upto his death and is accordingly directed to be released in favour of the widow of the concerned workman. The award does not call for any interference. The petitioners are no directed to comply within three months. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.