JUDGMENT : 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter be referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Misc. Application (I.T.) No.18 of 2010 in Approval Application (I.T.) No.508 of 2003 in Reference (I.T.) No.137 of 2001 whereby the Tribunal has allowed Misc. Application (I.T.) No.18 of 2010 preferred by the respondent and ordered to rehear Application (I.T.) No.508 of 2003 on merits. 2. The main contention of the petitioner herein is that the respondent was appointed as Acting Driver and he has unauthorizedly absent continuously and, therefore, after departmental inquiry, he was dismissed from the service w.e.f. 02.12.2003. It is contended by the petitioner that at that time, Reference (I.T.) No.137 of 2001 was pending before the Industrial Tribunal and, therefore, the petitioner has filed Approval Application (I.T.) No.508 of 2003 on 02.12.2003, which came to be allowed on 07.09.2005. It is further contended that thereafter, the respondent has filed Misc. Application with an application for condonation of delay on 03.09.2009 which came to be allowed vide order dated 03.09.2010. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner herein has preferred Special Civil Application No.15724 of 2010 before this Court, which was finally disposed of on 03.02.2011 with direction to the Tribunal to proceed with the Approval Application for restoration with conditions that the respondent would not claim any monetary benefit for the intervening period. It is also contended that thereafter, the Tribunal heard the parties and on 29.04.2011 quashed and set aside its earlier order dated 07.09.2005 and ordered to rehear Approval Application (I.T.) No.508 of 2003 on merits. This order has been challenged by way of present petition by the petitioner herein on the grounds that earlier, the Tribunal allowed the Approval Application, as the respondent herein did not appear for long time and there was almost huge gap and delay in filing the said application. Now, the Tribunal has allowed the same and doing so, the Tribunal has committed error of facts and law in passing the order of rehearing of the Approval Application. Now, the Tribunal has allowed the same and doing so, the Tribunal has committed error of facts and law in passing the order of rehearing of the Approval Application. It is contended that when the respondent was absent right from 04.01.2002 and never bothered to enter into any correspondence with the management of the employer, then, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the impugned order of granting application for approval and to order to rehear the Approval Application No.508 of 2003 which was earlier accepted by it. That conduct of the respondent ought to have been taken into consideration. It is contended that the Approval Application has been filed on 02.12.2003 and there was no right accrued to the respondent as at any stage during the hearing and passing of order of allowing the said application, more particularly, when the respondent was served with the notice issued by the Tribunal, he did not take part in the proceedings. On all these grounds, it is prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the Tribunal in Misc. Application (I.T.) No.18 of 2010 in Approval Application (I.T.) No.508 of 2003 in Reference (I.T.) No.137 of 2001. It is prayed to allow the present petition. 3. Heard Mr. H. S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Yogen Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent, at length, through video conferencing. 4. Mr.H. S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has submitted that the respondent was driver and due to his absentisum for long period, he was served with the charge-sheet and after due inquiry, he came to be dismissed from the service w.e.f. 02.12.2003. He has submitted that at that time, as the reference was pending, the authority i.e. petitioner has preferred an application for approval on the same day. He has submitted that the Tribunal has afforded sufficient opportunity to the respondent, but, he did not attend the proceedings and ultimately, the same was allowed by the Tribunal. He has submitted that thereafter, the respondent has filed application for condonation of delay for fresh hearing of the Approval Application, which came to be allowed by the Tribunal. He has submitted that against which the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing Special Civil Application. He has submitted that thereafter, the respondent has filed application for condonation of delay for fresh hearing of the Approval Application, which came to be allowed by the Tribunal. He has submitted that against which the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing Special Civil Application. According to him, the said petition came to be disposed of with certain directions wherein the respondent has undertaken not to insist for any salary during the interregnum period. According to him, thereafter, the Tribunal has passed the impugned order dated 29.04.2011 for rehearing of the Approval Application. He has submitted that as the respondent was not vigilant regarding his right, considering his conduct, the Tribunal ought not to have granted the prayer made by the respondent and ought not to have passed the order for rehearing of the Approval Application. He has submitted that after almost four years, the respondent has moved the application in question. He has submitted that the delay occurred in filing such application ought to have considered by the Tribunal. While referring to the materials placed on record, he has submitted that the general philosophical observation has been made by the Tribunal in granting the prayer for rehearing of the Approval Application. He has submitted that if such procedure is adopted, then, there will be multiplicity litigation. He has submitted that during the departmental inquiry, the respondent did not appear and, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have refused the prayer of the respondent for rehearing of the Approval Application. According to him, ultimately, the sufferer is the administration. He has prayed to allow the present petition by quashing and setting aside the order of the Tribunal. 5. Per contra, Mr.Yogen Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the order of the Tribunal in granting the prayer for rehearing is in consonance with the law. He has also submitted that by way of order, the Tribunal has given an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. He has submitted that due to such order, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioner. He has submitted that the entire proceedings pending before the Tribunal can be decided within a specified period. He has prayed to dismiss the present petition. 6. He has submitted that due to such order, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioner. He has submitted that the entire proceedings pending before the Tribunal can be decided within a specified period. He has prayed to dismiss the present petition. 6. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides coupled with the materials placed on record, it transpires that there is no dispute regarding the facts that the industrial dispute is pending between the parties and the respondent herein was working as driver. It is also undisputed fact that the petitioner herein has dismissed the respondent from the service and it has filed Approval Application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Earlier, the same was allowed as respondent herein did not bother to appear and file his written statement. It also appears that after considering the materials, the Tribunal has initially granted Approval Application. It is also undisputed fact that thereafter, in the year 2009 i.e. after three years, the respondent filed application for condonation of delay and main Approval Application by restoring the same. The same came to be allowed by the Tribunal and delay was condoned and that order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Special Civil Application No.15724 of 2010. The same was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice K. S. Jhaveri) vide order dated 03.02.2011 on the basis of the statement made by the learned advocate for the workman that the workman will not claim the wages under any circumstances for the period i.e. the date on which the Approval Application was allowed till the restoration application was filed. The Court has also directed the Tribunal to dispose of the restoration application on merits on or before 30.04.2011. 7. Pursuant to the said order, the Tribunal vide its order dated 29.04.2011 has allowed the application of the respondent and its earlier order passed in Approval Application (I.T.) No.508 of 2003 ordered to be quashed and set aside and directed to rehear the application on merits. 8. On perusal of the said order of the Tribunal, it appears that the Reference (I.T.) No.137 of 2001 was pending and during the pendency of the reference, the respondent came to be dismissed from the service and present petitioner has sought for approval of that action. 8. On perusal of the said order of the Tribunal, it appears that the Reference (I.T.) No.137 of 2001 was pending and during the pendency of the reference, the respondent came to be dismissed from the service and present petitioner has sought for approval of that action. While dealing with the averments of both the sides, the Tribunal has specifically held that the delay condonation application filed by the respondent has already been allowed. While referring to the materials placed on record in the Approval Application, the Tribunal has observed that the original reference being Reference (I.T.) No.137 of 2001 was pending. It is further observed in para-10 of the order of the Tribunal that the Approval Application was earlier decided exparte. It is further observed by the Tribunal that there was Godhra riots and due to that respondent has not received socalled notice and, therefore, he did not remain present. The Tribunal has further observed in the order that the matter was required to be decided on merits by affording opportunity of being heard to both the sides. These observations of the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse one. It is needless to say that any lies between the parties needs to be decided on merits rather than on mere technical grounds. The plea raised by the petitioner is based only on technical aspects that the workman i.e. respondent was not vigilant in defending the Approval Application as well as not remaining present in the departmental inquiry. Thus, the plea on the part of the petitioner is based on technical point. It is well settled that any dispute raised between the parties should be decided on merits by affording opportunity of being heard to both the sides. Therefore, considering the observations of the learned Tribunal, in ordering rehearing of the Approval Application is based on the well settled principles of law and it does not suffer from any illegality. The same is sustainable in the eyes of law. Of course, due to inaction on the part of the respondent, the Approval Application is pending since 2003 and also reference is pending since 2001. The grievance of the petitioner can be resolved if the Tribunal is directed to decide both the matters within time bound period and with necessary direction to both the parties to cooperate the Tribunal in deciding the matters within a time bound period. The grievance of the petitioner can be resolved if the Tribunal is directed to decide both the matters within time bound period and with necessary direction to both the parties to cooperate the Tribunal in deciding the matters within a time bound period. If such course is adopted, no prejudice is likely to be caused to either of the parties. 9. In view of the above discussions, the present petition stands disposed of with the direction to the Tribunal to decide Approval Application (I.T.) No.508 of 2003 and Reference (I.T.) No.137 of 2001 along with all ancilliar proceedings as expeditiously as possible preferable within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Both the parties are directed to cooperate the Tribunal in deciding the aforesaid applications within aforesaid time period. 10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Interim relief stands vacated. No order as to costs.