JUDGMENT : 1. The present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner – workman by challenging the illegality, validity and propriety of the order dated 30.03.2022 passed below Exh.24 by the learned Labour Court, Vadodara in Complaint Application No.07 of 2012 in Demand Application No.31 of 2012, wherein the learned Labour Court has rejected the complaint under Section 33(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are as such that the respondent No.1 is a Company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The name of the Company has been changed to G. D. Lab Solution. The petitioner was appointed in the respondent company on 16.03.1989 as a Feeder/Operator in the Fabrication Department. He was being paid Rs.9,707/- as monthly salary. In the respondent company, 44 permanent employees as well as 125 contractual employees were working. 2.2 On 07.09.2012, a notice was issued to the petitioner warning him that his services are likely to be terminated. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were illegally terminated. The petitioner had filed Reference Demand No.31 of 2012 before the learned Court, which was pending for adjudication when the services of the petitioner were terminated. Since his services were terminated, he decided to file a complaint application being Complaint Application No.07 of 2012. In the said complaint, the petitioner had alleged that the services of the petitioner had been terminated without following due process of law and without obtaining any approval from the learned Labour Court as mandatory by Section 33(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Pursuant to the issuance of notice in the complaint, the respondents appeared before the learned Labour Court and filed their reply. In the said reply, the respondents have defended their action of terminating the services of the petitioner and denied all the averments made by the petitioner in the complaint. 2.3 After hearing both the sides at length and at the conclusion of the proceedings, the learned Labour Court, Vadodara was pleased to dismiss the complain filed by the petitioner on 30.03.2022. 2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 30.03.2022 passed in Complaint Application No.07 of 2012 passed by the learned Labour Court, Vadodara, the present petition is filed. 3. At the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, today, the matter is heard for final disposal. 2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 30.03.2022 passed in Complaint Application No.07 of 2012 passed by the learned Labour Court, Vadodara, the present petition is filed. 3. At the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, today, the matter is heard for final disposal. 4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Krishnan M. Ghavariya appearing for learned advocate Mr. Bhavesh D. Hajare for the petitioner has submitted that it is the case of the petitioner workman that though the Demand Application No.31 of 2012, filed by the present petitioner, is pending before the learned Labour Court, the respondent No.1 had initiated enquiry against the petitioner, and therefore, vide order dated 07.09.2012, the petitioner – workman was dismissed by paying amount of dues payable to the petitioner workman. That is done without obtaining necessary permission under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act by the respondent as the Application No.31 of 2012 is pending before the learned Labour Court. He has relied upon the provisions of Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4.2 He has further relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Manavadar Nagarpalika Through Chief Officer Versus Vijay Vinubhai Rathod rendered in Special Civil Application No.15113 of 2019 and allied matter dated 06.09.2019, and has submitted that in view of the above judgment, the case of the petitioner workman is required to be considered by the learned Labour Court as he has filed the Complaint Application No.07 of 2012 under the provisions of Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act before the learned Labour Court, Vadodara but pursuant to the said complaint, the learned Labour Court has issued notice to the respondent and respondent No.1 - company has filed the written statement at Exh.6, whereby the respondent has contended that under the provisions of Section 9 of the Industrial Disputes Act, by notice dated 09.03.2011, the petitioner has issued a letter to the company by contending that the settlement, which is arrived, is getting over on 31.03.2011, and therefore, the notice is issued by the petitioner to the company, and therefore, the present petitioner has no right to file such complaint before the learned Labour Court. It was also contended by the respondent company before the learned Labour Court in the written statement that the approval application is already filed by the respondent company which is pending before the learned Labour Court, and therefore also, the complaint is required to be dismissed. The respondent company has also submitted that the entire amount is paid to the workman while dismissed the workman from service after valid enquiry, and therefore also, there is no substance in the said complaint. 4.3 Thereafter, the documentary evidence vide mark 3/1 to 3/12 and Exh.17 and 30 are produced on the record. The respondent has filed written submission at Exh.75 in all the complaints as there are group of complaints filed by the workmen. 4.4 Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has proceeded and framed the issues and decided the application of the present petitioner by rejecting the same by considering the fact that though the complaint is filed in the year 2012 but till 2018, the complainant has not given any evidence and thereafter, between the year 2018 and 2021, no evidence is led, and therefore, the matter is dealt with the materials available on the record and the learned Labour Court has found that the complainant has to establish that there is breach of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, before filing complaint under Section 33A and if both Sections 33 and 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act are read together then it transpires that Section 33A can be invoked only after breach of Section 33 is alleged or established and when the respondent has already filed the application under Section 33 for approval then there cannot said any breach and on the contrary, it can be said that the respondent has complied with the provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore, learned Labour Court has rejected the Complaint Application No.07 of 2012 filed by the present petitioner by order dated 30.03.2022. 5.1 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch for the respondent – Company has submitted that he has already filed approval application before the authority and there is no breach of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act established on the record, and therefore, there is no question to entertain or adjudicate the complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hriday Buch for the respondent – Company has submitted that he has already filed approval application before the authority and there is no breach of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act established on the record, and therefore, there is no question to entertain or adjudicate the complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5.2 While dismissing the workman, the necessary amount of compensation as required under the law is paid, and therefore also, no ground is made out by the present petitioner workman for which the learned Labour Court has to exercise powers conferred by entertaining the complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5.3 He has further submitted that when serious misconduct is alleged against the present petitioner, and pursuant to that though it is not required that the fulfledged departmental enquiry is proceeded after giving sufficient opportunity to defend his case, and thereafter, on the enquiry report, the service of petitioner workman is terminated by paying necessary wages. 5.4 He has submitted that the Demand Application No.31 of 2012 is arising pursuant to the enhancement of Dearness Allowance and other allowances for the period between 2011-2014 in view of the period of earlier settlement under Section 18(1) and Section 2(P) got over on 31.03.2011. Upon failure of conciliation proceedings on demand matter, the charter of demand placed by the workmen of the Company was referred to the learned Labour Court, Vadodara for adjudication of dispute, which was numbered as Demand Reference No.31 of 2012, and therefore, there is no connection with the subject matter of Reference and the action which is taken pursuant to the disciplinary enquiry against the present petitioner, who has committed serious misconduct, and therefore, there is no requirement to take prior permission or approval, as such, however, since the approval is sought for, and therefore, the learned Labour Court has rightly considered all the aspects including the conduct of the present petitioner who has not given any evidence after a long period of time about six year and that also speaks about the conduct of the workman. Considering overall circumstances, the learned Labour Court has rightly rejected the Complaint Application No.07 of 2012 by impugned order dated 30.03.2022. 6.1 I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. I have perused the record and proceedings. Considering overall circumstances, the learned Labour Court has rightly rejected the Complaint Application No.07 of 2012 by impugned order dated 30.03.2022. 6.1 I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. I have perused the record and proceedings. I have also considered the pleadings of the parties available on the record. 6.2 It clearly transpires that the learned Labour Court has rightly considered the provisions of Section 33 read with Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act reads as under:- Section 33:- “Conditions of service, etc. to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings.- During the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding before 2[an arbitrator or] a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall, (a) in regard to any matter connected with 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 proceedings; 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, 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 subsection (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 proceeding; 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 subsection, 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 union connected with the establishment, is recognized as such in accordance with rules made in this behalf. (4) In every establishment, the number of workmen to be recognized as protected workmen for the purposes of sub-section (3) shall be one per cent 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 this aforesaid purpose, the appropriate Government may make rules providing for the 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, 1[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.” Section 33(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act reads as under:- Section 33-A:- “Special provision for adjudication as to whether conditions of service etc. changed during pendency of proceeding.- Where an employer contravenes the provisions of Section 33 during the pendency of proceedings before a conciliation officer, Board, an arbitrator, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] any employee aggrieved by such contravention, may make a complaint in writing 6[in the prescribed manner,- (a) to such conciliation officer or Board, and the conciliation officer or Board shall take such complaint into account in mediating in, and promoting the settlement of, such industrial dispute; and (b) to such arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal, or National Tribunal and on receipt of such complaint, the arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal as the case may be, shall adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it, in accordance with the provisions of this Act and shall submit his or its award to the appropriate Government and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly.” 6.3 Learned Labour Court has also considered the Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act in the facts of the present case, whereby the application for approval is also filed by the respondent company, which was also rejected by the learned Labour Court by a separate order. 6.4 I have considered the submissions made at the Bar. 6.4 I have considered the submissions made at the Bar. In the judgment relied by learned advocate for the petitioner workman in the case of Manavadar Nagarpalika Through Chief Officer (supra), the facts and aspect of the matter are different from the facts of the present matter, and there i.e. in the aforesaid relied judgment, the substantive reference is pending and in the present matter, the demand reference is pending and which has no direct connection with the subject matter of enquiry made against the present petitioner and more particularly, when the respondent company has already acquired for approval, I found that there is no reason to entertain the application under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act as such provision can only be involved after non-compliance of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act and in the present case, as observed earlier in the submissions made at the Bar, the petitioner is already dismissed and thereafter the necessary wages were also paid as prescribed under the law, and thereafter, by way of separate application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the approval is also sought by the respondent company and I found that the learned Labour Court has rightly considered the case of the present petitioner by considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and materials available on the record. 6.5 Considering the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, I found that there is, as such, no cause is arisen to file application under Section 33(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, in absence of any non-compliance of the provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act itself, and therefore, the reasons assigned by the learned Labour Court, while rejecting the Complaint Application No.07 of 2012, are found just and proper and are found in accordance with law. 6.6 I found no reason to interfere in the order dated 30.03.2022 passed below Exh.24 by the learned Labour Court, Vadodara in Complaint Application No.07 of 2012 in Demand Application No.31 of 2012, by exercising my powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and more particularly, when I have also considered the case of the respondent in separate Special Civil Application parties to approve application, whereby the respondent has challenged the dismissal of approval application and that petition filed by the respondent company is allowed by separate order. 7. 7. In view of the above observation, the present petition is dismissed. Notice is discharge.