JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant - RSRTC against the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent has been allowed and the appellants were directed to pay the respondent all the service benefits from the date of passing the dismissal order dated 28.11.2002 till he attains the age of superannuation. Further, a direction was also issued to pay interest @ 6% per annum over the arrears of service benefits. It was also directed that the needful be done within a period of twelve weeks from the date of passing of the order, failing which, interest was ordered to be levied @ 9% per annum and the same was ordered to be beared by the responsible officer.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the respondent-petitioner was dismissed from service for carrying passengers without ticket on 28.11.2002 and thus, he did not performed any duty till his time of superannuation on 30.09.2015. Learned counsel, however, submits that the dismissal order could not fall within the parameters of Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1947’) and thus, was not approved by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks invocation of the simple jurisprudence of ‘No Work No Pay’. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that once the respondent-petitioner has not served for such a prolonged period, at best, the Hon’ble Single Judge could have awarded him notional benefits and/or award 50% of the total wages.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Manager of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Haneef Khan (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24258-24259/2019), decided on 13.2.2025.

4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is a Constitutional Bench judgment, which is holding the field regarding non-approval of termination under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 244. Para 14 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

“Where an application is made under Section 33(2)(b) proviso, the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer has to examine whether the order of dismissal or discharge is bona fide; whether it was by way of victimization or unfair labour practice; whether the conditions contained in the proviso were complied with or not etc. If the authority refuses to grant approval obviously it follows that the employee continues to be in service as if the order of discharge or dismissal never had been passed. The order of dismissal or discharge passed invoking Section 33(2)(b) dismissing or discharging an employee brings an end of relationship of the employer and employee from the date of his dismissal or discharge but that order remains incomplete and remains inchoate as it is subject to approval of the authority under the said 9 provision. In other words, this relationship comes to an end de jure only when the authority grants approval. If approval is not given, nothing more is required to be done by the employee, as it will have to be deemed that the order of discharge or dismissal had never been passed. Consequence of it is that the employee is deemed to have continued in service entitling him to all the benefits available. This being the position there is no need of a separate or specific order for his reinstatement. But on the other hand, if approval is given by the authority and if the employee is aggrieved by such an approval, he is entitled to make a complaint under Section 33-A challenging the order granting approval on any of the grounds available to him. Section 33-A is available only to an employee and is intended to save his time and trouble inasmuch as he can