THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.16910 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed in a representative capacity by the State Ware Housing Corporation Godown Workers Union, Nawabpalem, Tadepalligudem mandal, West Godavari district, represented by its President T.Suryachandra Rao seeking reinstatement and continuation of hamalies into the service of State Ware Housing Corporation Godown, Nawabpalem. According to the petitioner, there are about 198 Hamalies/Workers working in the State Ware Housing Corporation Godown at Nawabpalem since 28.12.2003. The contract period of obtaining godown on lease basis was for a period of two years and thereafter the same will be renewed from time to time. The second respondent-contractor in turn had entered into an agreement with the State Ware Housing Corporation for supply of labour and the said agreement was also valid for a period of two years. However, some dispute arose between the Petitioner Union and the second respondent as to payment of daily wages and the same is under consideration before the Conciliation Officer (third respondent). While the matter stood thus, the second respondent issued proceedings dated 12.6.2010 terminating the services of 77 Hamalies. Hence this writ petition. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner states that in view of Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act 1947, the service conditions of members of the petitioner union shall not be altered when a dispute is pending before the Conciliation Officer. Section 33 of I.D. Act reads as under: “33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings (1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding before 2 [an arbitrator or] a Labour Court or Tribunal or National 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; or (b) for any misconduct connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, any workman concerned in such dispute, save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending. (2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance with standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute 2 [or, where there are no such standing order, in accordance with the terms of the contract, whether express or implied, between him and the workman]-- (a) alter, in regard to any matter not connected with the dispute, the conditions of service applicable to that workman immediately before the commencement of such proceeding; or (b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, that workman: Provided that no such workman shall be discharged or dismissed, unless he has been paid wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer.” However, the learned counsel appearing for second respondent Smt.K.Sesharajyam submits that even the contract for supply of labour had expired on 19.7.2010 and therefore, second respondent is not supplying any labour to the first respondent and moreover there is no work available and the extension of lease period is still under consideration, therefore, the question of engaging members of the petitioner union does not arise. Even otherwise, there is a dispute as to identification of members of the petitioner union is pending. Be that as it may, since the contract period had already expired and the renewal is under consideration and unless and until the contract is renewed, second respondent may not be able to engage the members of the petitioner union. Therefore, in view of Section 33 of I.D. Act, if there is any renewal of contract by the second respondent with first respondent, except the genuine members of the petitioner union, no other person shall be engaged. In other words, only after engaging the members of the petitioner union, if there is any further need, second respondent shall engage other persons. The third respondent is also directed to finalise the conciliation proceedings pending before him within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 22.7.2010 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. B/o DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.16910 of 2010 22.7.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.16910 of 2010 Date: 22nd July, 2010 Between: State Ware Housing Corporation Godown Workers Union, Nawabpalem, Tadepalligudem mandal, represented by its President. .. Petitioner And State Ware Housing Corporation, Nawabpalem Established Godown, Tadepalligudem mandal, W.G. district represented by its District Ware House Manager and others. .. Respondents