1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5776 OF 2009 Nashik Workers Union. ..Petitioner. Vs. M/s.Shalimar Paints Ltd. and anr. ..Respondents. Ms.Firdos Moosa i/by Prakash Mahadik for the Petitioner. Mr.P. K. Rele, Sr. Advocate with V. N. Tayade i/by Piyush Shah for the Respondents. CORAM :R.S.MOHITE, J. DATE : 24TH NOVEMBER,2009 PC: 1 Heard both sides. 2 Matter can be disposed off finally. Hence, Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3 This is a petition filed by Nashik Workers Union impugning a judgment and order dated 2 16.2.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Court, Nashik on Application (IDA) No.1 of 2007 in Reference (IT) No.2/2006. By the impugned order, Industrial Court has allowed the application for grant of approval filed by the respondent under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947. 4 The record indicates that while Reference No.2/2006 was pending, during the period from 13.6.2006 to 25.5.2007, by different dismissal orders 42 workers were dismissed by the employer company. Consequent to the dismissal, 42 separate complaints were filed by the individual workman contending unfair labour practice under MRTP & PULP Act,1971 challenging the dismissal. Labour Court granted interim relief in these complaints by an common order dated 8.10.2007. It is only after such interim relief was granted, that by an application dated 11.10.2007, employer company woke up and filed the aforesaid application for 3 approval. The said application for approval was ultimately granted by the impugned order dated 16.2.2009. Now, it is well settled that an application for approval need not be preferred prior to the date of dismissal and it must be simultaneous to the said decision and the part of the same transaction. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon a Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Govind reported in 1962 FLR Page 403. The Apex Court has also made similar observations in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. VS. S. N. Modak reported in 1065 II LLJ 128 (S.C.). I find that while passing the impugned order, the court has noticed these judgments but have not given any cogent reasons to come to the conclusion that the application for approval was part and parcel of the transaction relating to the dismissal of the workmen concerned. In fact, the record shows that the dismissal orders were passed during the period between 13.6.2006 and 25.7.2007. It was only after 4 the dismissal orders were challenged and interim relief was granted in favour of the workmen, that the company has woke up and filed the application for approval. In my view, considering the set of facts in the present case, it cannot be said that the application for approval, was part and parcel of the same transaction. In the circumstances, petition will have to be allowed. Rule is therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Petition stands disposed off. 5 At this stage, Advocate for the respondents seeks stay of this order for a period of four weeks from today since he desires to challenge this order in the Apex Court. Operation of this order is therefore, stayed for four weeks from today. 6 Certified copy expedited. (R.S.MOHITE, J.)