[2025:RJ-JP:32984] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2038/2003 Virendrapal Singh S/o Shri Mukhtyar Singh, aged about 40 years, R/o Village Korer, Tehsil Deeg, Distt. Bharatpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Judge Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur. 2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Lohagarh Agar, Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kashyap For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitin Sinsinwar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 21/08/2025 1. Petitioner has assailed order dated 18.12.2002 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur whereby application under Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 filed by the respondent-employer has been allowed and approval has been accorded in respect of dismissal order dated 23.10.1997. 2. While assailing the aforesaid order dated 18.12.2002, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per requirement of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947, it is incumbent upon the management to pay wages for one month prior to the date of passing of order for discharge or dismissal, and to simultaneously submit an application before the concerned authority for seeking approval. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasised that although while filing reply to the application under Section 33(2) (b) of the Act of 1947, specific objection was raised, while denying [2025:RJ-JP:32984] (2 of 3) [CW-2038/2003] the contents of the application, that the petitioner-workman had not received any wages pursuant to Proviso to of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947. Learned counsel submits that although such objection has been taken note of by learned Tribunal but without framing any issue in this regard and without discussing the aforesaid objection, the order dated 18.12.2002 has been passed by the Tribunal and in the entire order, there is no finding in order to adjudicate the objection raised by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation has supported the order dated 18.12.2002 and submits that the contents of application filed by the Corporation were quite specific, in which it was specified that one month wages amounting to Rs.2050/- were sent to the petitioner- workman through money order at his registered address and on the same day, application for approval was also sent through post, which was received in the office of learned Tribunal on 25.10.1997. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation while indicating the contents of his application submits that since bare perusal of the application would make it clear that the respondent- Corporation had complied with the mandatory procedure contemplated in Proviso to of Section 33(2)(b) hence, there was no further requirement to invite any finding by the learned Tribunal over the aforesaid objection. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by counsels for the parties and examined the record. 7. Bare reading of order dated 18.12.2002 would reflect that objection with regard to non-compliance of Proviso to of [2025:RJ-JP:32984] (3 of 3) [CW-2038/2003] Section 33(2)(b) has been specifically raised by the petitioner- workman in his reply to the application. The objection with regard to non-compliance of the aforesaid provision goes to the root of the matter and is a significant objection questioning the maintainability of the application. Without deciding the aforesaid objection, no application for approval can be decided by the Industrial Tribunal. In the instant case, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has utterly failed to show even iota of finding over the aforesaid objection raised by the petitioner- workman. 8. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order dated 18.12.2002 passed by learned Tribunal is perverse and has been passed without considering the legal objections raised by the petitioner-workman. 9. In view of above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 18.12.2002 passed by learned Tribunal is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Industrial Tribunal for deciding it afresh after considering and dealing with the objection raised by the petitioner-workman with regard to non-compliance of Proviso to of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947. 10. Looking to the facts of the case, since it relates to the year 1997 hence, under such circumstances, the learned Tribunal is directed to decide the matter expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/30