1. This petition has been preferred seeking issuance of appropriate direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner on his original post with continuity of service and full back wages.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was serving as a Junior Assistant at the Divisional Office of the respondent-Corporation at Godhra. On 28.08.2001 the petitioner was terminated from service on the basis of an adverse report against him. It appears that when the above order of termination was passed, a dispute was pending before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ahmedabad, in which the petitioner was a party. Therefore, the respondent had preferred approval application before the said authority. The said approval application was rejected by the authority vide order dated 18.03.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations to the concerned authorities requesting to issue appropriate directions to the respondent to reinstate him in service with all benefits. In the year 2008, the respondent preferred another application being Approval Application No.313 of 2008 before the Industrial Tribunal. However, the said application was rejected vide order dated 20.09.2011. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made another representation requesting the respondent to grant him reinstatement in service with other benefits. However, no action was taken by the respondent. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been mainly contended on behalf of the petitioner that when the authority concerned as also the Industrial Tribunal rejected the approval application passed by the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner becomes entitled for reinstatement with full back wages. However, the respondent did not reinstate the petitioner in spite of the repeated requests. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case M.D., Tramil Nadu State Transport Corporation v. Neethivilangan Kumbakonam, 2001 AIR SC 2309 [2001 LAB I.C. 1801] wherein it has been held thatn when approval u/s.33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act is refused by the Tribunal, then the order of dismissal / discharge has to be treated as non-est and the employer is bound to treat the employee as continuing in service and give him all consequential benefits and if the benefits are refused, then the employee can enforce his rights by filing writ petition.
4. Considering the facts of the case, the appropriate remedy available to the petition is to file appropriate application u/s.33(C)(1) or 33(C)(2) of the I.D. Act since right of the concerned workman crystallized on rejection of the approval application. It would not be appropriate for this Court to grant reliefs claimed in this petition, which, otherwise, are subject matter of the Executing Court. Hence, this petition is misconceived and deserves to be rejected.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is summarily rejected with a cost of Rs.250/-, which shall be deposited before the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/* Top