IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 306 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5776 OF 2009. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 350 OF 2009. Shalimar Paints Ltd. ..... ..... ...Appellant. V/s Nashik Workers Union ..... ..Respondent. Mr.P.K.Rele, Sr. Adv. i/by Mr.Piyush Shah, for the appellant. Mr.Anand Grover with Ms.Firdus Moosa i/by Mr.Prkash Mahadik, Adv. For the respondent. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, ACTING C.J. AND B.R.GAVAI, J. 14th JANUARY, 2010. PC: The appellant takes exception to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24.11.2009 in Writ Petition No. 5776 of 2009 thereby allowing the petition filed by the respondents. 2. The respondent being aggrieved by their termination had approached the learned Industrial Court. In the said proceedings an interim relief was granted. During pendency of the said proceedings an application came to be filed by the present appellant under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking approval of the dismissal. The said application was allowed by the Industrial Court. Being aggrieved thereby respondent therein preferred the aforesaid writ petition and the same was allowed. 3. Shri Lele, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration that an application is tenable even if it is filed after the dismissal of an employee. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that since the application for approval of dismissal was not filed prior to dismissal the same was not tenable. 4. Shri Grover, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned order. 5. Learned Single Judge relying on a judgment of the Apex Court reported in the case of The Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v/s Govind, AIR 1962 SC 1500 has held that the order of dismissal of an application for approval of the same have to be part of the same transaction. In the present case it could be seen that though the termination is of the year 2006 the application for approval has been filed on 11.10.2007 and that too after an interim order was passed in favour of the respondent herein. The Apex Court in the case of The Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra) has clearly held provisions of S.33(2)(b) requires that three things i.e. (i) dismissal or discharge, (ii) payment of wages and (iii) making of an application for approval, are required to be simultaneous and to be part of the same transaction. In the present it could be clearly seen that an application for grant of approval was filed after the dismissal was challenged by the respondent before the learned Industrial Court and that too after grant of interim relief. 6. In that view of the matter we do not find any error or illegality in the view taken by the learned Single Judge to warrant any interference. Hence Appeal stands dismissed. 7. In view of dismissal of the Appeal civil application No.350 of 2009 does not survive and the same also stands disposed of. (ACTING C.J.) (B.R. GAVAI, J.)