Judgment

P. K. GOSWAMI, J.:- This appeal by special leave at the instance of the Bhavagar Municipality is directed against the order of the Gujarat High Court dismissing in limine its writ application challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat, made under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act (briefly the Act).

2. There was an industrial dispute pending between the Bhavnagar Municipality (briefly the appellant) and its workmen before the Industrial Tribunal in Reference No. 37 of 1974 referred to it under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Act on March 5, 1974. The said industrial dispute related to several demands including the demand for permanent status of the daily rated workers of the Water Works Section of Municipality who had completed 90 days service. While the aforesaid industrial dispute was pending before the Tribunal, the appellant, on September 30, 1974, passed orders retrenching 22 daily rated workmen (briefly the respondents) attached to the Water Works Section of the Municipality. It is not disputed that the appellant had complied with Section 25 F of the Act and due retrenchment compensation had been paid to those workers. On June 20, 1975, the respondents filed a complaint to the Tribunal under section 33A of the Act for contravention of Sec. 33 of the Act by the appellant.

3. Neither party adduced any oral evidence before the Tribunal but relied only upon documents produced before it. On October 30, 1975, the Tribunal made its award holding that the appellant contravened Section 33 (a) (a) of the Act and, therefore, directed reinstatement of the respondents. The appellant preferred a writ application before the High Court which was dismissed in limine, as stated above. Hence this appeal by special leave.

4. Two questions arise for decision in this appeal. First, whether the appellant contravened Section 23 (a) (a) of the Act by ordering retrenchment of the respondents who, along with other workers, were directly involved in the industrial dispute pending before the Tribunal. Second, whether contravention of Section 33 will automatically lead to an order of reinstatement of the respondents, as has been held by the Tribunal.

5. It is common ground that the appellant did not obtain prior permission of the Tribunal before retrenching the respondents.

6. It is well settled that a complaint under Section 33A is maintainable only if the employer contravenes Section 33 of the Act. It is submitted by Mr. Agarwal, on behalf of the respondents, that the object of Section 33 should be borne in mind in considering the question about alteration of conditions of service under Section 33 (1) (a) of the Act. He submits that since the respondents were directly involved in the dispute and the question of their permanent status from a casual or temporary status formed the subject-matter of the dispute, the reference has been made nugatory by the action of the appellant in retrenching them. Mr. Parekh, on the other hand, submits that retrenchment of the respondents does not involve alteration of conditions of service and hence there is no contravention of Section 33 of the Act.

7. There is no complaint by Mr. Agarwal that there is any noncompliance by the appellant with Section 25F of the Act. Mr. Agarwal further rightly concedes that he cannot bring his case under Section 33 (1) (b) or under Section 33 (2) (b) since it is not a case of discharge or dismissal for misconduct. His entire submission is based on Section 33 (1) (a) of the Act.

8. Section 33 of the Act so far as material for us may be set out:

33 (1) During the pendency of any ..... proceeding before a ...... Tribunal ....... in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall-

(a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceeding;

X X X X X

save with the express permission in writing of the authorit