ORDER :

1. Heard.

2. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents despite service of notice.

3. By this review petition, the petitioner seeks review of order dated 12.02.2019 passed by this Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 310/2018.

4. Briefly stated, the petitioner while working as conductor with the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘RSRTC’) was terminated from service during the pendency of another industrial dispute between the parties. An application under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1947’) filed by the employer before the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur seeking approval, eventually came to be rejected by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide order dated 30.11.2010.

5. Aggrieved by this order, the employer/respondent preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10520/2011, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 27.11.2017. While dismissing the writ petition, learned Single Judge, however, ordered that the workman would be treated to be in service and would be entitled for benefits of intervening period as if the order of dismissal had never been passed. It was further held that the benefits of the intervening period from 04.10.2001 to 30.11.2010 i.e. the date of passing of the order by the Tribunal, shall be calculated notionally and the actual payments shall be released thereafter. The learned Single Judge also held that the period of service shall be counted for the purpose of gratuity, pension etc.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, writ appeals were preferred by the employer as well as workman. Vide common order dated 12.02.2019, the impugned order under review was passed. This Court while upholding the order in so far as rejection of application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 on the part of the employer is concerned, held that the workman is entitled to half of the back wages by way of actual monetary benefits along with continuity of service for the intervening period from 04.10.2001 to 30.11.2010 with interest @ 9% per annum. The SLP was preferred, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a review petition whereafter present review petition has been filed.

7. Relying upon two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation vs. Neethivilangan, Kumbakonam, 2001 (3) LLN 34 and Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and Others, (2002) 2 SCC 244, it has been contended that once approval under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Act of 1947 is not granted, the order of termination cannot be said to be approved and de jure relationship of employer and employee continues entitling the workman to all the consequential benefits including wages. Therefore, it is contended, the order passed by this Court deserves to be reviewed as the actual benefits have been limited in terms of wages to the extent of 50%.

8. In the case of Managing Director, Tamil Nadu, State Transport Corporation (supra), the statutory scheme of Section 33 (2)(b) of the Act of 1947 considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as below:

“16. From the conspectus of the views taken in the decisions referred to above the position is manifest that while the employer has the discretion to initiate a departmental inquiry and pass an order of dismissal or discharge against the workman the order remains in an inchoate state till the employer obtains orders of approval from the Tribunal. By passing the order of discharge or dismissal de facto relationship of employer and employee may be ended but not the de jure relationship for that could happen only when the Tribunal accords its approval. The relationship of employer and employee is not legally terminated till approval of discharge or dismissal is given by the Tribunal. In a case where the Tribunal refuses to accord approval to the action taken by the employer and rejects the petition