ORDER :

ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.

1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. Mr. K.M.Patel, learned Senior Counsel has submitted affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the respondent – writ petitioner. The same is taken on record.

2. By the present Civil Applications, the applicants herein – respondent workmen are praying for wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [“ID Act” for short] from the date of the order dated 13.09.2022 passed in Approval Application No.34 of 2019 in Reference (IT) No.32 of 2018 till date and to make such payment pending the final adjudication of the present Special Civil Applications.

3. Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that this Court by order dated 09.10.2025 has been pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the judgment and order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara, i.e. the impugned order. He submits that the effect of the order passed by the learned Tribunal is that the workmen are required to be reinstated in service and the workmen are deemed to be in service as if no order of termination has been passed. He submits that the impugned order has been passed on 13.09.2022. The said order has been challenged by the respondent writ petitioner after delay of more than 3 years. He submits that pending the present writ petitions, the respondent writ petitioner be directed to pay the last drawn wages to the applicants workmen since the applicants have been terminated from service on 12.03.2019. He submits that the applicants workmen have made a specific declaration before this Court that they are not gainfully employed in any establishment after their termination on 12.03.2019 till date. He submits that the applicants workmen are ready and willing to immediately join the service of the respondent writ petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the present Civil Applications be allowed and the prayers prayed for be granted.

3.1 In support of his contention, Mr. Dipak Dave, learned counsel relies upon the following authorities:

[i] Kanjibhai Punjabhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat - 2005 (1) GLH 208 and

[ii] Anvarkhan Ghafurkhan Pathak v. Transport Manager - 2012 LLR 433.

4. Per contra, Mr. K.M.Patel, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent – writ petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara is not an “award” since the same has rejected the approval application made by the respondent herein as per Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act. He submits that the rejection of the approval application does not amount to any adjudication of any industrial dispute in reference of Section 10 of the ID Act and therefore, the same cannot be said to be an award as defined under the ID Act. He submits that the proceedings in an approval application for approval of the action of dismissal as per Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act are for the removal of the temporary ban on the right of the management to take disciplinary action during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. He submits that since the approval proceedings are not pursuant to any reference of “industrial dispute”, the impugned order cannot be said to be an award. He further submits that even without admitting if the impugned order is treated as an “award”, then the same has not been published as required under Section 17 of the ID Act. He submits that in absence of publication of such “award”, the same cannot be treated to have become enforceable. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the applicants herein have no right of reinstatement and therefore, the provisions of Section 17B of the ID Act will not have any application in the present case. He, therefore, submits that the present Civil Applications seeking direction for payment of last drawn wages as per Section 17B of the ID Act are liable to be rejected. He further submits that the applicants herein