( 1 ) PETITIONER has approached this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, in the circumstances noticed hereafter.

( 2 ) PETITIONER joined the respondent-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") as Conductor in 1970. On 2-4-1994, while he was on duty enroute from Jaghadia to Ankleshwar, there was a Checking and as per the allegations of the respondent-Corporation, petitioner was found carrying some passengers without ticket and, some passengers, to whom after charging amount, tickets were not issued. After holding inquiry, services of petitioner were terminated by order dated 29th October, 1994. At the time when order of dismissal was made, some proceedings were pending in respect of industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. The misconduct for which respondents sought to dismiss the petitioner was not connected with that dispute. After making dismissal order, the Corporation applied for approval of the action taken by it stating that they have paid the wages for one month. The payment of wages for one month and application for approving the action taken by the Corporation dismissing the workman, made in accordance with law, makes the order accorded with proviso to s. 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

( 3 ) THE workman on receiving the notice of application under S. 33 (2) (b), filed a reply thereto on 21st November, 1994. The petitioner alleged in his reply that the departmental inquiry against him was not in accordance with the fair procedure and as required under the relevant service rules and he also raised objection that the employer has not paid one month wages as required to be paid under S. 33 (2) (b ). He also furnished in his reply details of short payment alleged to have been made to him of the one month wages required to be made.

( 4 ) AFTER receiving the reply and hearing the parties, the impugned order approving the action taken by respondent-Corporation came to be made by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bharuch. It would be appropriate for appreciating the controversy raised in this petition to reproduce the order in full, which is short one :-

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner urges that the impugned order approving the action taken by Corporation by the Assistant Labour Commissioner suffers from patent breach of principles of natural. The order neither takes notice of contentions raised by petitioner in his written reply to the show-cause notice against prayer of approval to the dismissal order made by the respondent-Corporation nor does it give any reasons for granting the approval. As the proceedings for according approval is required to be completed, after affording an opportunity of hearing, as the proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature and as the final order made on application vitally affects the rights of petitioner adversely, the order was required to be made in consonance with the principles of natural. Such orders are required to be speaking order as the natural concomitant of fair procedure required of authority to adhere to principles of natural in deciding the rights of parties. The order falls short of this requirement and is void.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for respondent urges that the order of termination, discharge or dismissal does not become inoperative or ineffective merely because approval is not granted or is withdrawn or application is not made. He contended that there is a vital difference between the scheme of sub-S. (1) and sub-S. (2) of S. 33. While under sub-S. (1) of S. 33, seeking approval of the Competent officer is a pre-condition before an order of dismissal or discharge or termination can be made, under sub-S. (2), application for approval is to be made only after the order has been made. In other words, the requirement of making an application itself under sub-S. 2 (b) of S. 33 is not a condition precedent of making the order but is requirement subsequent to making an ord