H.L. Gokhale, C.J.

Heard Mr.Karthik, learned counsel in support of this appeal. Mr.Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader appears for the first respondent and Mr.S.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel appears for the second respondent.

2. The appellant is a Printer and Publisher of books. The second respondent is a Union of Employees and the dispute in the present matter is concerning one Mr.G.Karunakaran, who was suspended on 09th September 2006. The second respondent Union raised a demand on 14th September 2006. The demand notice had various demands, one of which was to revoke this order of suspension. The Labour Officer/Conciliation Officer, to whom the demand notice was sent, issued a summons to the parties to appear before him on 27th September 2006. Thereafter, it appears that the matter was being attended by him on a number of days. It so transpired that during the pendency of this proceedings before the Conciliation Officer, Mr.Karunakaran was dismissed on 22nd April 2007.

3. Being aggrieved by that dismissal, the second respondent Union filed a compliant to the Conciliation Officer under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter will be referred to as the I.D.Act, for short) pointing out that the dismissal was in violation of the mandate of Section 33 of the I.D.Act, which requires that during the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a Conciliation Officer in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, no employer shall alter, to the prejudice of the workman concerned, the conditions of service applicable to him or for any misconduct connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending.

4. On that complaint being filed, the Officer passed an order on 20th December 2007 after hearing both the parties. In that order addressed to the appellant management, in the ultimate para, the Officer has observed as follows:-

In this manner, you are informed while the talks and the petitioners plea was in progress, without prior permission or consent of the Conciliation Officer, Labour Officer (3), the dismissal of the Executive President G.Karunakaran is in violation of Section 33 (1)(b) of the I.D.Act".

5. Being aggrieved by that letter/order, the appellant filed a petition, which came to be heard and decided by the learned Single Judge, who by his order dated 08th June 2009 did not find anything wrong in the order passed by the Conciliation Officer and dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by that order, this appeal has been filed.

6. Mr.Karthik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant made principally two submissions. The first submission was that on the date on which this dismissal order was passed by the appellant, it could not be said that any conciliation was pending before the Conciliation Officer so as to contend that there was any breach of Section 33 of the I.D.Act. As far as this submission is concerned, he further submitted that there is a distinction between mediation" and investigation" on the one hand and formal commencement of conciliation" on the other hand. He also submitted that there is a distinction between the conciliation in public utility services and non-public utility services". As far as non-public utility services are concerned, under Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, (hereinafter will be referred to as the Rules, for short) on receiving any information, the Conciliation Officer has to consider whether he should intervene or not and then he is required to send a formal intimation. Rule 23 of the Rules reads as follows:-

23. Conciliation Proceedings in non-public utility service. –

(1) Where the Conciliation Officer receives any information about an existing or apprehended industrial dispute which does not relate to a public utility service and he considers it necessary to intervene in the dispute, he