( 1 ) LEARNED counsel for the DTC states that in all there were 325 cases in which there were refusal of the Labour Court/tribunal to approve the order of dismissal, by way of the application (s), moved by the respondent, DTC under 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act ). She further submits that out of 325 cases, challenges had been made to 221 such orders and in respect of 28 cases decision to challenge had been taken and papers entrusted to counsel. She also submitted that in six cases employees have been taken back on duty by the DTC and this leaves a total of 70 cases where the orders under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act were not challenged. It is the cases of some of these employees, i. e. , CW 1673/02 with CWS 1951/02, 383/03, 2219/03, 2345/03, 8010/02 and 4826/01 which will be governed and disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) RULE. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petitions are taken up today for hearing.

( 3 ) THIS writ petition and the other connected writ petitions seek a mandamus for continued service with the respondent/dtc of the petitioners, workmen as the petitioners have not been given consequential benefits of arrears and employment with the respondent in spite of the rejection of the approval application moved under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act by the respondent/dtc. The rejection of the approval has not been challenged by the DTC and has become final.

( 4 ) MS. Rasmeet Charya, Learned counsel for the petitioner in CW 2219/2003 has relied upon a judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in M. D. , Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs Neethivilangan, Kumbakonam 2001 (3) SCALE which held that upon a refusal by the Industrial Tribunal of an application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act, the employer is bound to treat the employee as continuing in service and give him all consequential benefits and if such benefits are not granted, the employee shall have the rights to enforce the same by filing a writ petition under Article 226 rather than be compelled to have the matter re-agitated and decided by the Industrial Tribunal. The relevant portion of the above judgment reads as follows:

"from the conspectus of the views taken in the decisions referred to above the position is manifest that while the employer has the discretion to initiate departmental inquiry and pass an order of dismissal or discharge against the workman the order remains in an inchoate state till the employer obtains orders of approval from the Tribunal. By passing the order of discharge or dismissal de facto relationship of employer and employee may be ended but not the de jure relationship for that could happen only when the Tribunal accords its approval. The relationship of employer and employee is not legally terminated till approval of discharge or dismissal is given by the Tribunal. In a instant case where the Tribunal refuses to accord approval to the action taken by the employer and rejects the petition filed under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act on merit the employer is bound to the treat the employee as continuing in service and give him all the consequential benefits. If the employer refuses to grant the benefits to the employee the latter is entitled to have his right enforced by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. There is no rational basis for holding that even after the order of dismissal or discharge has been rendered invalid on the Tribunal s rejection of the prayer for approval the workman should suffer the consequences of such invalid order of dismissal or discharge till the matter is decided by the Tribunal again in an industrial dispute. . . . . . . "

( 5 ) MR. Tyagi, the learned counsel for the petitioner in CW 1673/2002 has relied upon a 5 Judges Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Jaipur Zila Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs Shri Ram Gopal Sharma and Others 2002 (1) SCALE 190. The position of law