1. DTC by this petition impugns the order dated 7th February, 2001 of the Industrial Tribunal dismissing/rejecting the application of DTC under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Notice of this petition was issued on 28th July, 2004 on the contention of the counsel for DTC that the respondent workman had also raised an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the I.D. Act qua the same order of his dismissal/removal from service, of which approval was sought by DTC in the application under Section 33 (2)(b) of the ID Act; the said industrial dispute (vide order dated 18th October, 2003) had been answered against the respondent workman and the punishment imposed by DTC of removal of the respondent workman had been upheld; it was thus submitted that while the Industrial Tribunal in the order impugned in this petition had refused to give approval to the action of DTC of removal of respondent workman from service, the Industrial Tribunal in the dispute raised by the respondent workman held the action of DTC of removal of respondent workman to be valid. This Court while issuing notice of the petition also stayed the operation of the order dated 7th February, 2001. The said order has continued to remain in force. On 7th February, 2006 the application of the respondent workman under Section 17B of the ID Act was allowed. DTC was directed to pay wages at the rate of last drawn wages from 7th February, 2001 till the end of February, 2004 and at the rate of minimum wages from 1st March, 2004 onwards to the respondent workman. The respondent workman has filed an undertaking to refund the amount received in excess of last drawn wages in the event of this petition being decided in favour of DTC. On 17th March, 2010 it was informed that the writ petition preferred by the respondent workman against the award of the Industrial Tribunal in the industrial dispute raised by him had been dismissed on 16th April, 2009. On 17th March, 2010 the counsels were called upon to also address on the effect, if any, of the industrial dispute having been decided against the respondent workman, on the present petition. The counsels have been heard.

2. I will first take up the aspect of the conflicting orders in the proceedings emanating under Section 33 (2)(b) and those emanating under Section 10 of the ID Act.

3. The order of removal of the respondent workman from service was passed on 4th December, 1992. Owing to the then pendency of an industrial dispute between DTC and its workmen, approval of the order dated 4th December, 1992 of removal of the respondent workman from service was sought by filing on 4th December, 1992 itself an application under Section 33(2)(b). In the said proceedings a preliminary issue as to the legality and validity of the domestic inquiry preceding the order of removal of the respondent workman from service was framed. The said preliminary issue was decided against DTC. DTC opted to prove the misconduct, for the reason whereof the order of removal from service was made, before the Industrial Tribunal. Finally the Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 7th February, 2001 impugned in this petition dismissed the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act.

4. It appears that the respondent workman also raised an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Act with respect to the order dated 4th December, 1992 of his removal. Reference thereof was made by the appropriate Government to the Industrial Tribunal on 31st October, 2001 i.e. nearly eight months after the rejection of the application aforesaid under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. The reference in the said industrial dispute was answered vide award dated 18th October, 2003 i.e. during the time when the present petition was pending. The Industrial Tribunal has in the award dated 18th October, 2003 held that the charges against the respondent workman were proved / established and the respondent workman was not only guilty of remaining absent but was also s