( 1 ) RULE. As only question of law is involved, there is no need for the counter affidavit to be filed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the petition suffers from delay and latches. Another submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that the order passed by the tribunal under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not on merit. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner has cited T. N. State Transport Corporation v. Neethivilangan, Kumbakonam, (2001) 9 SCC 99 and Jaipur Zila Sahakari bhoomi Bank Ltd. Vikas v. Shri Ram Gopal Sharma and Ors. , JT 2002 (1) SC 182.

( 2 ) IN view of both the authorities cited by learned counsel for the petitioner it is no more res integra that once under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes act the petition has been dismissed and restoration application filed by the respondent was also dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal on 19. 10. 2000. The workman was entitled for reinstatement with consequential benefits. The first order passed by the Industrial Tribunal on the application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the industrial Disputes Act was on 30. 6. 1997.

( 3 )