https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285065 Approval under Section 33(2)(b) was valid because the dismissal order, offer of one month's wages, and filing of the approval application formed the same transaction. Protected workman status was not proved, as the record showed no employer recognition in accordance with the applicable rules, so prior permission under Section 33(3) was unnecessary. Even with defects in the domestic enquiry, the tribunal could examine the evidence on merits and determine whether the misconduct justified dismissal; on the admitted misconduct and gravity of the lapses, approval was sustained and operated from the date of dismissal. en-us Fri, 15 Feb 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Dec 2019 10:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285065 Approval under Section 33(2)(b) was valid because the dismissal order, offer of one month's wages, and filing of the approval application formed the same transaction. Protected workman status was not proved, as the record showed no employer recognition in accordance with the applicable rules, so prior permission under Section 33(3) was unnecessary. Even with defects in the domestic enquiry, the tribunal could examine the evidence on merits and determine whether the misconduct justified dismissal; on the admitted misconduct and gravity of the lapses, approval was sustained and operated from the date of dismissal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 15 Feb 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285065