( 1 ) THE petitioner in Speical Civil Application No. 763 of 1996 is the Works Manager of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. Respondent therein is a workman who has filed the counter-petition being Special civil Application No. 1564 of 1996. Both the petitions are concerning the same order of a Conciliation Officer passed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity ). Hence, both the matters have been heard together and are being disposed of together by this common judgment. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 763 of 1996 who is respondent in Special civil Application No. 1564 of 1996 is hereinafter referred to as the management, whereas the respondent in Special Civil Application No. 763 of 1996 who is the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1564 of 1996 is hereinafter referred to as the workman.

( 2 ) THE workman was working as an artisan (Category-B) in a Coach Shop of the management. It is alleged against the workman that on 27/02/1993 the workman had stolen 17 pieces of scrapped battery brackets. A departmental inquiry was held against him and on 28/02/1994 he was ordered to be dismissed from service. Since one other dispute was pending in conciliation between the management and its workmen (in general) before a Conciliation Officer in Ahmedabad, the management applied for approval of their action by making necessary application as required by Sec. 33 (2) (b) of the Act. While making that application they paid the workman wages for one month as required by the proviso to the said section. The Conciliation Officer found that the workman was paid Rs. 0. 52 less while paying his wages and therefore, he rejected the approval application by his order dated 30th june 1994. The management reinstated the workman by order dated 25/08/1994 and paid him all his wages. The management thereafter issued another order of dismissal on 2-1-1995, paid one months full wages and filed another application for approval of their action on the same day. That application also came to be rejected by the Conciliation Officer by his order dated 17/11/1995 wherein in the last paragraph the Officer observed as follows :"the opponent joined on duty from 26-8-1994. The applicant has not pointed out any case being filed against the opponent or having taken any disciplinary action against him from 26-8-1994 till the date of passing of the dismissal order on 2-1-1995. Hence, the approval application dated 2-1-1995 filed by the applicant is not found to be proper. It does not deserve to be heard and is rejected. "

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by that order, the management has filed Special Civil application No. 763 of 1996 on 24/01/1996 whereas the workman has filed special Civil Application No. 1564 of 1996 on 26/02/1996 praying that the said order be enforced and it be directed that the workman be treated as if continuing in service with effect from 2/01/1995 and never dismissed and he be paid full wages on that basis. It so happened that the workmans petition was moved earlier for admission and a notice was issued on 29/02/1996 making it returnable on 7/03/1996. On 7th March 1996 the leaearned Advocate for management pointed out that Special Civil Application No. 763 of 1996 has been filed by them about the same subject-matter and hence Special Civil Application no. 1564 of 1996 was directed to be heard along with Special Civil Application no. 763 of 1996. When both the matters came up on 27/03/1996 it was directed that if possible the matters will be heard finally on the subsequent date, i. e. , on 4/04/1996. Thereafter, both matters have been placed on Board together from time to time. In Special Civil Application No. 763 of 1996 the workman has filed his reply on 8-3-1996 and the management has filed its rejoinder on 27-3-1996.

( 4 ) I have heard Mr. Clerk, learned Advocate for the workman, and Mr. Raval, learned Advocate for the management. The main submission of Mr. Cle