JUDGMENT : 1. Special Civil Application No.8535 of 2012 has been preferred by the petitioner – Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation against the order dated 18.05.2011 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter be referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Approval Application No.140 of 2003 [Reference (I.T.) No.37 of 2000], whereas, Special Civil Application No.11241 of 2012 has been preferred by the petitioner – Corporation against the order dated 05.05.2012 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Recovery Application No.47 of 2011. 2. The petitions have been preferred by the petitioner – Corporation contending that the respondent – workman was working as a driver in Godhra Division and he remained absent from 21.11.2001 to 04.01.2002 and, therefore, he was called upon to face departmental inquiry and he was directed to remain present, however, he did not remained absent and charge-sheet No.12 of 2002 was served to the workman and after following principles of natural justice and several opportunities were given to the respondent, but he did not remain present in the departmental inquiry nor he resumed duty upto the date of examination of the reporter i.e. 26.07.2002. It is also contended that the second show-cause notice issued on 23.08.2002 which was replied by the respondent on 29.08.2002. Thereafter, the service of the workman came to be terminated on 10.04.2003 and an amount of Rs.5,000/- as well as Rs.3,673/-, by different receipts bearing No.9331 and 9332 respectively, paid by way of money order on the same day i.e. on 10.04.2003 to the workman, which came to be received by the workman on 12.04.2003. It is also contended that therefore, the Corporation has filed an approval application before the concerned Tribunal wherein the workman has falsely contended that he has not received one month salary and on that ground, the Industrial Tribunal has rejected the approval application. It is further contended that in the approval application, the Corporation has also stated that if the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the departmental inquiry is illegal then the Corporation may be permitted to produce necessary evidence thereof. However, no such opportunity has been afforded to the Corporation and ultimately, the impugned award / order was passed against the Corporation. However, no such opportunity has been afforded to the Corporation and ultimately, the impugned award / order was passed against the Corporation. 2.1 It is contended by the Corporation that on that basis, the workman has filed recovery application which also came to be allowed by the Tribunal though there was a stand taken by the Corporation that necessary correspondence was being in progress with the higher authority. 3. The workman has filed affidavit-in-reply in Special Civil Application No.8535 of 2012 wherein he has denied all the facts narrated by the Corporation and has reiterated that no opportunity of hearing was given to the workman in the departmental inquiry and the workman has not received one month salary. He has stated that the order passed by the Tribunal is in consonance with the principles of law and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard Mr.Hardik Rawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P. J. Brahmbhatt, learned counsel for the respondent – workman at length through video conferencing. 5. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that during the pendency of these petitions, original workman has died and, therefore, his heirs were brought on record. 6. Mr.Rawal, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted the same facts which are narrated hereinabove. While inviting the attention of the Court to the various documents, he has submitted that after due inquiry and considering the past history of the deceased workman, the order of dismissal was passed and he was already paid one month salary by way of two money orders. He has submitted that since the Corporation has not received the receipts of money orders by the workman, the Corporation has got necessary information from the postal department with regard to receiving thereof. He has submitted that though the workman has already received the notice pay as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as the “I.D. Act”), he has made false statement before the Tribunal as well as filed false affidavit-in-reply. According to him, the Corporation has filed approval application for approval of dismissal of the deceased – workman and the Tribunal ought to have allowed the said application as there was no prejudice cause to the deceased – workman. According to him, the Corporation has filed approval application for approval of dismissal of the deceased – workman and the Tribunal ought to have allowed the said application as there was no prejudice cause to the deceased – workman. He has submitted that there was specific prayer made by the Corporation in approval application that in case it is found by the Tribunal that the departmental inquiry suffers from irregularity and illegality then necessary opportunity be provided to the Corporation for placing everything on record. According to him, however, without affording any such opportunity to the Corporation, the Tribunal has dismissed the approval application which is not in consonance with the facts and law. He has submitted that the impugned order is erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 6.1 Mr.Rawal, learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal in recovery application is also not legal and valid and as the impugned order has been stayed by this Court and when approval application was not properly decided, there was no any right available to the workman. He has submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal in recovery application is erroneous and it deserves to be quashed and set aside. Alternatively, Mr.Rawal, learned counsel has submitted that the matters may be remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication after affording opportunity to the Corporation to lead necessary evidence. 6.2 Mr.Rawal, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Lakshmidevamma (SMT) and another, (2001) 5 SCC 433 . 7. Per contra, Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned counsel for the respondent – workman has vehemently submitted that Section 33 of the I.D. Act is applicable to the facts of the present case and since there was non-payment of full notice pay and there was no production of any evidence by the Corporation, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is in consonance with the facts and law. He has submitted that since the dismissal order was passed without affording any opportunity of being heard to the deceased, the Tribunal has properly passed the impugned order. He has submitted that since the dismissal order was passed without affording any opportunity of being heard to the deceased, the Tribunal has properly passed the impugned order. He has submitted that the deceased – workman has submitted his medical certificate which was not challenged by the Corporation and since at the relevant time, there was riot in the entire State, the deceased could not join the duty. He has submitted that the authority has failed to produce relevant documents in approval application regarding the departmental inquiry and there was serious infirmity in dismissal order. He has submitted that the impugned order of dismissing the approval application is just and proper and it is sustainable in the eyes of law and, therefore, the petition being Special Civil Application No.8535 of 2012 and Special Civil Application No.11241 of 2012 may be dismissed with costs. 7.1 Mr.Brahmbhatt, learned counsel for the workman has relied upon the following decisions in support of his submissions. (1) Bharat Electronics Limited Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Karnataka, Bangalore and another, 2008 (2) GLR 1341 ; (2) Chhel Singh Vs. MGB Gramin Bank, Pali and others, (2014) 13 SCC 166 ; (3) Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service Vs. Budhabhai Atmaram, (1990) 2 SCC 314 ; (4) Atlas Cycle (Haryana) Limited Vs. Kitab Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 573 ; (5) M/s. Nicks (India) Tools, Vs. Ram Sarat and another, AIR 2004 SC 4348 ; (6) Superintending Engineer Vs. Ashwin Vajubhai Kavaiya, 2017 (0) AIJEL-HC 237631; (7) Maganbhai L. Chauhan Vs. Divisional Controller, G.S.R.T.C., 1999 (1) GLH 527 ; (8) Divisional Controller Vs. Lilabhai Visabhai Kucchadiya, 2017 (0) AIJEL-HC 237628; 7.2 Mr.Brahmbhatt, learned counsel for the workman has also submitted that the Tribunal had observed regarding the breach of principles of natural justice. He has submitted that the Corporation has to put true story of payment, whereas, there was non-availability of receipt of money order. He has submitted that the documents produced before this Court were not produced by the employer before the Labour Court and, therefore, those documents cannot be considered at this stage. He has submitted that now, the workman has died and, therefore, the purpose to remand the matter to the Labour Court would not be advisable. He has submitted that the documents produced before this Court were not produced by the employer before the Labour Court and, therefore, those documents cannot be considered at this stage. He has submitted that now, the workman has died and, therefore, the purpose to remand the matter to the Labour Court would not be advisable. He has submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Labour Court in the approval application and the recovery application are in consonance with the facts and law and, therefore, this Court may not disturb the same and both the petitions may be dismissed. He has submitted that the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. 8. In rejoinder, Mr.Rawal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent – workman are not applicable to the facts of the present case. He has submitted that the deceased has played fraud with the Court especially when he has received the full salary by way of money order, he could have accepted the facts of receipts of notice pay. He has submitted that the workman has filed false affidavit and also made false averments before the Labour Court. He has submitted that the heirs can get only the retrenchment benefits and they cannot get the entire amount which has been directed by the Labour Court. He has submitted that the matter may be remanded to the Labour Court to decide afresh permitting the Corporation to produce the evidence in approval application, which was not afforded to the Corporation. He has prayed to allow both the petitions and remand the matter to the Labour Court. 9. He has submitted that the matter may be remanded to the Labour Court to decide afresh permitting the Corporation to produce the evidence in approval application, which was not afforded to the Corporation. He has prayed to allow both the petitions and remand the matter to the Labour Court. 9. It is worthwhile to referred to Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which reads as under:- 33.Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings.- (2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance with 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, 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. 10. It is well settled that the conditions contained in the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act are mandatory in nature and their non-compliance would render the order of discharge or dismissal void or inoperative. If a Tribunal refuses is to grant approval sought for under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act, the effect of it shall be that the order of discharge or dismissal had never been passed and consequently the workman would be deemed to have continued in service entitling him to all the benefits available to him / her. 11. On perusal of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (supra), while dealing with Section 10 and Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act, the Apex Court has observed that the right of a management to lead evidence before the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal in justification of its decision on the consideration by such tribunal or court is not a statutory right. This is actually a procedure laid down by the Supreme Court to avoid delay and multiplicity of proceedings in the disposal of disputes between the management and the workman. It is also observed therein that at the same time, it is also of advantage to the workmen in as much as they will be put to notice of the fact that the management is likely to adduce fresh evidence, hence, they can keep their rebuttal or other evidence ready. 12. The various decisions relied upon by Mr.Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the workman are relating to the scope of Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act. 13. Considering the submissions made by learned advocates for both the sides and the materials placed on record coupled with the decisions relied upon by learned advocates for both the sides and the provisions of Section33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act, it is crystal clear that there is no dispute that there is relationship of employer – employee between the Corporation and the deceased workman. It is also not in dispute that the deceased workman was working as driver in the Corporation and he was absent on duty for certain period. That, he was served with the notice and directed to join the duty, however, he did not join the duty. It also appears from the record that the second show-cause notice has issued to the deceased – respondent and in pursuant to that show-cause notice, he has sent the medical certificate. It also appears from the record that ultimately, the Corporation has terminated the service of the deceased driver and has sent two different money orders on the same day to him. The dispute is regarding non-receipt of such money orders by the deceased. It also appears that the Corporation has filed approval application before the Tribunal for approval of it’s action wherein the Corporation has submitted certain documents relating to the departmental inquiry and in issuance of the show-cause notice, the workman has raised the point of non-receipt of full salary as notice pay. 14. On perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that the Tribunal, while delaying with the application, has found from the documentary evidence produced by the employer that the entire departmental proceeding was conducted by the one and the same person and ultimately, the Corporation has issued termination order. 14. On perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that the Tribunal, while delaying with the application, has found from the documentary evidence produced by the employer that the entire departmental proceeding was conducted by the one and the same person and ultimately, the Corporation has issued termination order. On that basis, it was held by the Tribunal that since there is non-observance of the principles of natural justice, the departmental proceeding is vitiated. On that basis, the Tribunal has dismissed the approval application. 15. Now, on perusal of the impugned orders, it clearly appears that even if it is believed that the workman has received the notice pay in full, the question of non-observance of principles of natural justice needs to be decided. It is pertinent to note that so far as the observation of the Tribunal / Labour Court that there is non-observance of the principles of natural justice and there is breach of violation thereof by the Corporation is concerned, such observation has not been challenged by the Corporation in these petitions. It is also pertinent to note that the Tribunal has rejected the approval application not only on the ground of alleged non-payment of salary of one month, but, has also based it’s decision on the ground that the entire departmental proceeding which includes issuance of show-cause notice, issuance of charge-sheet as well as passing of punitive order has been passed by the one and the same person. This observation of the Tribunal is based upon the documentary evidence produced by the Corporation itself. Thus, the order of the Tribunal is based on the two aspects. Now, admittedly, the Corporation has come with the case that it has paid one month salary as per the certificates issued by the postal departmental. If that fact is believed as it is, the facts of issuance of the showcause notice as well as issuance of the charge-sheet and passing of punitive order by one and the same person, is not denied by the Corporation. It also appears that the observation of the Tribunal in this respect has not been challenged by the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the present petitions are filed before this Court under the revisional power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It also appears that the observation of the Tribunal in this respect has not been challenged by the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the present petitions are filed before this Court under the revisional power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Of course Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been referred to but in reality it is filed in exercise of revisional power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, there is limited jurisdiction vested in this Court to interfere with the findings of facts which are based on the materials placed on records before the Tribunal. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the order of the Tribunal in rejecting the approval application cannot be set aside. 16. If the Tribunal rejects the approval application filed by the employer, the right to file recovery application is available to the workman concerned who has been discharged or dismissed from the services. As observed herein, it is well settled that if the Tribunal refused to grant approval sought for under Section 33(2) (b) of the I.D. Act, the effect of it would be that the order of discharge and dismissal had never been passed and consequently, the workman would be deemed to have continued in service entitling him to all benefits available to him. 17. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is crystal clear that the order of the Tribunal rejecting the approval application of the employer is based on the factual as well as legal aspects and it is in consonance thereof and it is sustainable in the eyes of law. Further, since the action of the Corporation employer was not approved by the Tribunal, the right was available with the workman to file recovery application for its due. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the findings of facts of the Tribunal which are based on the materials placed on record before the Tribunal is sustainable in the eyes of law. In the present case also, the findings of facts in relation to the departmental inquiry being vitiated on account of everything being done by one and same person not being challenged, attained finality. 18. In the present case also, the findings of facts in relation to the departmental inquiry being vitiated on account of everything being done by one and same person not being challenged, attained finality. 18. In that view of the matter, the both the petitions are required to be dismissed as there is no error on the part of the Tribunal in rejecting the approval application as well as allowing recovery application. 19. In view of the above, the petitions are hereby dismissed. The order dated 18.05.2011 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Approval Application No.140 of 2003 [Reference (I.T.) No.37 of 2000] and the order dated 05.05.2012 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Recovery Application No.47 of 2011 are hereby confirmed. 20. The petitioner – Corporation is directed to comply with the order of the Tribunal passed in recovery application within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount will carry 6% interest thereof from the receipt of this order ill its realization. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.