JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner – workman by challenging the illegality, validity and propriety of the order dated 30.03.2022 passed below Exh.24 by the learned Labour Court, Vadodara in Complaint Application No.07 of 2012 in Demand Application No.31 of 2012, wherein the learned Labour Court has rejected the complaint under Section 33(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2.1 Brief facts of the case are as such that the respondent No.1 is a Company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The name of the Company has been changed to G. D. Lab Solution. The petitioner was appointed in the respondent company on 16.03.1989 as a Feeder/Operator in the Fabrication Department. He was being paid Rs.9,707/- as monthly salary. In the respondent company, 44 permanent employees as well as 125 contractual employees were working.

2.2 On 07.09.2012, a notice was issued to the petitioner warning him that his services are likely to be terminated. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were illegally terminated. The petitioner had filed Reference Demand No.31 of 2012 before the learned Court, which was pending for adjudication when the services of the petitioner were terminated. Since his services were terminated, he decided to file a complaint application being Complaint Application No.07 of 2012. In the said complaint, the petitioner had alleged that the services of the petitioner had been terminated without following due process of law and without obtaining any approval from the learned Labour Court as mandatory by Section 33(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Pursuant to the issuance of notice in the complaint, the respondents appeared before the learned Labour Court and filed their reply. In the said reply, the respondents have defended their action of terminating the services of the petitioner and denied all the averments made by the petitioner in the complaint.

2.3 After hearing both the sides at length and at the conclusion of the proceedings, the learned Labour Court, Vadodara was pleased to dismiss the complain filed by the petitioner on 30.03.2022.

2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 30.03.2022 passed in Complaint Application No.07 of 2012 passed by the learned Labour Court, Vadodara, the present petition is filed.

3. At the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, today, the matter is heard for final disposal.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Krishnan M. Ghavariya appearing for learned advocate Mr. Bhavesh D. Hajare for the petitioner has submitted that it is the case of the petitioner workman that though the Demand Application No.31 of 2012, filed by the present petitioner, is pending before the learned Labour Court, the respondent No.1 had initiated enquiry against the petitioner, and therefore, vide order dated 07.09.2012, the petitioner – workman was dismissed by paying amount of dues payable to the petitioner workman. That is done without obtaining necessary permission under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act by the respondent as the Application No.31 of 2012 is pending before the learned Labour Court. He has relied upon the provisions of Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

4.2 He has further relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Manavadar Nagarpalika Through Chief Officer Versus Vijay Vinubhai Rathod rendered in Special Civil Application No.15113 of 2019 and allied matter dated 06.09.2019, and has submitted that in view of the above judgment, the case of the petitioner workman is required to be considered by the learned Labour Court as he has filed the Complaint Application No.07 of 2012 under the provisions of Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act before the learned Labour Court, Vadodara but pursuant to the said complaint, the learned Labour Court has issued notice to the respondent and respondent No.1 - company has filed the written statement at Exh.6, whe