Calling in question the legal sustainability of the order dated 7th December, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 16938/2005, the present intra-court appeal has been filed.

2. The factual score which requires to be exposited are that the respondent-workman was a sweeper under the appellant, namely, Delhi Transport Corporation (for short „the corporation). A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on 29th April, 1993 on the ground that he had remained unauthorizedly absent for 107 days during the period between 1st January, 1991 and 31st December, 1991. In the disciplinary enquiry, he was found guilty and thereafter the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal and issued the said order on 20th August, 1993.

3. As during that period an industrial dispute was pending between the management and the workman, a proceeding under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity „the Act) was initiated seeking approval from the labour court. The said application was dismissed on 2nd September, 1996 for non-payment of costs. The said order of dismissal was challenged before this Court in WP (C) No. 1584/2001, which was dismissed by an order dated 13th March, 2001. The said order was not assailed before the superior forum and, therefore, was allowed to attain the finality.

4. It is apt to note that when the corporation had filed the application seeking approval from the labour court, the workman had taken recourse to the appropriate procedure for seeking reference to the labour court as he was grieved with the order of removal. As the conciliation failed, the matter was referred to the labour court. The labour court dealt with the said reference forming the subject matter of ID No. 1045/1994 and allowed the same by the order dated 9th August, 2004. The Presiding Officer, labour court, directed workman to be entitled to reinstatement with full back wages.

5. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the management-appellant preferred a writ petition before the writ court contending, inter alia, that when the proceeding under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act was dismissed for want of prosecution, it was obligatory on the part of the labour court to address the controversy on merits and it was totally illegal on his part to allow the reference on the ground that no order of dismissal did exist in the eyes of law. It was also contended before the learned Single Judge that the grant of full back wages was absolutely unwarranted in the obtaining factual matrix.

6. The learned Single Judge, as is perceptible from the order impugned, referred to the decision in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Shri Ram Gopal Sharma and others, (2002) 2 SCC 244 and came to hold that the order passed by the labour court as regards the issue that the order of removal had become extinct was absolutely impeccable. As far as the grant of back wages is concerned, the learned Single Judge referred to the decisions in State of M.P. and others v. Arjun Lal Razzak, 2006 (2) LLJ 104 and Haryana State Electricity Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mamni, 2006 (2) LLJ 244 and came to hold that grant of Rs.50,000/- towards back wages would subserve the cause of justice.

7. Assailing the legal propriety, Mr.Sarfaraz Khan, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that both the labour court as well as the learned Single Judge has fallen into grave error in their appreciation of the decision in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. (supra). It is contended that when the application preferred under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act has been dismissed on the foundation that the costs was not deposited, even if it is given stamp of approval by this Court, the same could not operate as res judicata and it is incumbent on the part of the labour court to advert to the merits of the case and written findings. Learned counsel has commended us to a learned Single Judges decision of th