42# 18.01.2010 Present: Ms. Sunita Harish for the petitioner. jvir. N.A. Sebastian ffor the respondent. + W.P.(C) No.269/2010 * By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 the petitioner seeks to challenge the award dated 23.5.2009 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-1, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in CID NO. 07/08. Ms. Sunita Harish counsel for the petitioner subnnits that the respondent worknnan had received full and final payment after termination of his services by the petitioner and in fact an amount of Rs.70,181/- was duly debited in his bank account. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court to the bank statement duly certified by the bank manager. Counsel thus submits that once the respondent himself had severed the relationship with the petitioner and had also received full and final payment, therefore, there remained no dispute between the parties. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent was not a protected workman and in fact he was Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified 0 declared as a protected workman for a limited period of about 4 days w.e.f. 18.2.2008 to 1.4.2008 vide order dated 26.9.2008. Counsel also submits that the said order is already under challenge before this court in a separate writ petition filed by the petitioner. Counsel also submits that the respondent had no right to move the court under Section 33-A of the I.D.Act as no ^ valid dispute under Section 33 of the said Act was pending between the parties. The submission of the counsel for the ^ s/ petitioner is that once the validity of the dispute raised by the respondent under Section 33 of the I.D. Act is under dispute, therefore, it was not obligatory on the part of the petitioner to have sought approval of the termination of the respondent under Section 33(2) (b) of the I.D. Act. In support of her ^ arguments, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the . j judgment of this Court in Pritam Singh Vs. The Presiding ^ Officer, Industrial Tribunal NO.l & Ors.,2006(4) SLR. Mr. N.A. Sebastian counsel for the respondent appears on advance notice. Mr. Sebastian opposing the present petition at the admission stage submits that under the provisions of Section 33 (3) the petitioner in fact should have obtained prior permission before terminating the services of the respondent. Counsel also submits that the respondent did not receive the cheque at the time of receiving his dismissal order but later on the said cheque was unauthorizedly deposited by the petitioner in his bank account. Counsel submits that after finding the said amount debited in his account he further sent the cheque to the ^ petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at ib. y considerable length. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not filed any application under Section 33(2) (b) of the I.D. Act to seek approval of their action terminating the services of the respondent. So far the validity of dispute raised by the respondent under Section 33 of the I.D. Act is concerned, the same is still pending under consideration before the Tribunal and no finding has yet been returned by the Tribunal. The judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in that case the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute under S. 33 of I.D. Act. The respondent workman was well within his rights to move under Section 33-A of the l.D. Act once the dispute raised by the respondent under Section 33 of the l.D. Act was still pending consideration before the Industrial Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has placed reliance on the number of judgments as referred to in order dated 23.5.2009, and based on that the Tribunal granted interim relief to the respondent workman. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said interlocutory order dated 23.5.2009 passed by the Tribunal. There is no merit in the present petition. Dismissed. JANUARY 18, 2010 MG KAILASH GAMBHIRJ