KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.Oral:

1. By this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks directions for quashing of order dated 12.5.2000 passed by the Labour Court, whereby the application of the petitioner management under Section 33(2) (b) of the I.D. Act seeking approval was dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant for deciding the present petition are that the respondent workman joined the petitioner management on 14.5.83 and was dismissed vide order dated 6.6.94 on the grounds of misconduct after conducting an enquiry. Pursuant to the order of the removal, an approval application was filed under Section 33(2) (b) of the I.D. Act and the learned Labour court vide order dated 12.5.2000 dismissed the said application filed by the petitioner DTC and the respondent workman was reinstated on 17.7.2002. Thereafter, the respondent filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 623/2006 seeking directions for grant of full back wages for the period for which he was out of service whereby the court ordered the grant of full back wages to the respondent workman vide order dated 29.11.2005. Then the management petitioner filed an appeal bearing LPA No. 228/2007 where the Hon’ble Division Bench granted liberty to the petitioner management to withdraw the appeal and take recourse to the appropriate remedy.

3. Mr. Chaturvedi, counsel for respondent no.2 at the outset took an objection that the order dated 12.5.2000 passed by the Labour Court had attained finality , as no challenge was made by the petitioner to the said order when the respondent workman had approached this court by filing writ petition (bearing W.P.(C) No. 6922/2003) to seek directions for the grant of full back wages and all consequential benefits in view of the fact that approval application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Labour court.

4. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the said order of the Labour court was earlier not challenged by the petitioner as the respondent workman had earlier agreed not to claim back wages in the court of law. Hence, due to the said representation made by the respondent, the petitioner did not choose to challenge the said order dated 12.5.2000.

5. Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this court to the extracts from the note of petitioner DTC at page 200 of the paper book. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent was reinstated in the service with immediate effect but without grant of back wages but this fact was concealed by the respondent workman from this court in writ petition bearing no. 6922/2003 filed by him. Counsel thus submitted that once the respondent was reinstated in his service, on his representation not to claim back wages, therefore, no need arose to challenge the said order of the Labour court whereby the approval application of the petitioner under Section 33(2) (b) was dismissed.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Chaturvedi, counsel for the respondent submitted that vide order dated 29.11.2005, this court gave directions to the petitioner DTC to grant full back wages with all consequential benefits and the said order was passed by this court after giving hearing to the petitioner DTC. Counsel further submitted that in para 3 of the said order this court had also observed that the order dated 12.5.2000 passed by the Labour Court was not assailed by the petitioner DTC and the same had attained finality. Counsel further submitted that the order dated 29.11.2005 was challenged by the petitioner by filing appeal bearing LPA No. 228/2007 but the same was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to take appropriate remedy in the matter.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. After dismissing the respondent from service vide order dated 6.6.94 the petitioner DTC had approached the concerned Labour Court to seek approval of their action by filing application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the I.D. Act. The said application of the petitioner