Summarize the following court judgment. vil Appeal No. 310 of 1954. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 22	 1956	 of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India	 Calcutta in Appeal No. Cal. 183 of 1955. N.C. Chatterjee	 section N. Mukherjee and B. N. Ghosh for the appellant. Sukumr Ghosh	 for the respondent. May 21. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO J. This appeal by special leave against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India is limited to the question whether an order of reinstatement can be made on an application under section 33 A of 60 474 the (hereinafter called the Act). The brief facts necessary for the decision of this question are these. The appellant is a Jute Mill. There was a dispute pending before an Industrial Tribunal between a number of jute mills in West Bengal and their employees	 and the appellant was a party to that dispute. During the pendency of that dispute	 the appellant laid off the respondent who was an employee in the ration shop maintained by the appellant from July 19	 1954	 as rationing of food stuff came to an end from July 10	 1954. The reason for the lay off was that the ration shop was closed following the end of rationing. This resulted in the staff in that shop becoming surplus. Consequently	 nine persons were selected for retrenchment on the principle of " last come first go"	 and the respondent was one of them. The appellant also applied under section 33 of the Act to the Industrial Tribunal for permission to retrench the respondent along with others. Shortly before the application under section 33	 the respondent had applied under section 33 A of the Act and. his case was that there was no reason to make Any retrenchment on account of the closure of the ration shop and that he was at any rate longer in service than others who had been retained and therefore the principle of " last come first go " had not been followed. It was also said that the respondent had been laid off as he was an active worker of the union and as such was not in the good books of the appellant. It was	 therefore	 prayed that the respondent should be allowed full wages and amenities since the so called lay off	 which was nothing more nor less than retrenchment and that he should be reinstated. The Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that the lay off was justified because of the closure of the ration shop and gave permission to the appellant to retrench the respondent on the principle of " last come first go ". The respondent appealed to the Labour Appellate Tribunal. He did not urge there that there was no necessity for retrenchment at all. What was urged there was that the Industrial Tribunal was wrong in holding that the principle of " last come first 475 go" had been followed in this case. The Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondent had been in service much longer than others who had been retained and therefore the principle of " last come first go " had been violated. In consequence	 the appeal was allowed and the permission to retrench the respondent was refused. The Appellate Tribunal also ordered that the respondent	 should be reinstated in service without any break in the continuity of service and the order of the appellant in laying him off and discharging him in effect from July 19	 1954 was set aside. Thereupon the appellant came to this Court and was granted special leave on the limited question set out above. In our opinion	 the answer to the limited question on which the special leave has been granted can only be one in view of the language of section 33 A. That section lays down that " where an employer contravenes the provision is of section 33 during the pendency of proceedings before a tribunal	 any employee aggrieved by such contravention	 may make a complaint in writing to the tribunal and on receipt of such complaint the tribunal shall adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it	 in accordance with the provisions of the Act and shall submit its award to the appropriate government and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly. " It is thus clear that a complaint under section 33 A of the Act is as good as a reference under section 10 of the Act and the tribunal has all the powers to deal with it as it would have in dealing with a reference under section 10. It follows	 therefore	 that the tribunal has the power to make such order as to relief as may be appropriate in the case and as it can make if a dispute is referred to it relating to the dismissal or discharge of a workman. In such a dispute it is open to the tribunal in proper cases to order reinstatement. Therefore a complaint under section 33 A being in the nature of a dispute referred to a tribunal under section 10 of the Act	 it is certainly within its power to order reinstatement on such complaint	 if the complaint is that the employee has been dismissed or discharged in breach of section 33. 476 Learned counsel for the appellant wanted to argue that this was not a case of discharge or dismissal but of lay off. We did not permit him to raise this argument because the special leave was limited only to the question set out above. The answer to that question has already been indicated above and on that answer the appeal must fail. We therefore dismiss the appeal	 but in the circumstances we make no order as to costs of this Court. Appeal dismissed.

The respondent made an application under section 33A of the 	 which	 inter alia	 stated that there was no reason for retrenchment on account of the closure of a ration shop	 and that at any rate he was longer in service than others who had been retained	 and	 therefore	 the principle of " last come	 first go " had been violated. The Tribunal dismissed the application whereupon the respondent appealed to the Appellate Tribunal which allowed the appeal and refused permission to retrench. The Appellant Company was granted special leave to appeal only on the limited question as to whether an order of re instatement can be made on an application under section 33A of the Act. Held	 that the complaint under section 33A of the 	 is as good as a reference under section 10 of the Act and the Tribunal has all the powers to deal with it as it would have in dealing with a reference under section 10 of the Act and it is open to the Tribunal in proper case to order reinstatement.