Judgment 1. In this case the petitioner has obtained a rule from the High Court calling upon the respondents to show cause why the award of the Labour Court, Ranchi, dated the 12th December, 1960, in Miscellaneous 19 of 1960 Case No. _________ M/C 19/60 should not be set aside by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2 Cause has been shown by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given. 3. On behalf of the petitioner the main argument put forward is that the award of the Labour Court is ultra vires and without jurisdiction because there was no contravention by the employer of the provisions of Sec.33 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In our opinion this argument is well founded and must be accepted as correct. The case of the two workmen, Bharat and Khetro, before the Labour Court was that they were sweepers employed in the hospital of the petitioner and had refined to take the call book to the emergency doctors on the plea that taking call books to doctors, was the job of hospital boys and not of sweepers. The petitioner charge-sheeted them for disobedience of lawful orders and after holding an inquiry suspended the workmen, and finding them guilty of the charges refused to pay Bharat wages for three days and to Khetro for six days. The case of the respondents was that at that time there was an industrial dispute pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, with regard to the revision of grades and scales of pay of all the workmen and the action of the management was tantamount to an attempt to increase the workload and so there was a breach of the provisions of Sec.33 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act which runs as follows: - "33. (1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding before 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 workmen concerned in such dispute, save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending." It was contended on behalf of the petitioner before the Labour Court that there was no breach of the provisions of Sec.33 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and there was no attempt on the part of the petitioner to increase the workload of the two sweepers concerned. The Labour Court has gone into this question of fact and has found that the workmen had failed to establish that taking call books to the doctors was no part of their duty and so rejected their contention regarding change in the conditions of service. In view of this finding of fact we are of opinion that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing of the case under Sec.33-A of the In-dustrial Disputes Act which states as follows : - 33-A. Where an employer contravenes the provisions of Sec.33 during the pendency of proceedings before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, any employee aggrieved by such contravention, may make a complaint in writing, in the prescribed manner to such Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal and on receipt of such complaint that Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it, in accordance with the provisions of this Act and shall submit its award to the appropriate Government and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly." It follows, therefore, that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint of the two sweepers and give an award in the matter under Sec.33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was argued by learned Counsel on behalf of respondents Nos. It was argued by learned Counsel on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in this case that there was violation of Sec.33 (1) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act because there was punishment by the employer of the two sweepers for misconduct connected with the dispute without the express permission in writing of the Industrial Tribunal before whom the previous industrial dispute was pending. In our opinion there is no merit in this argument because that was not the case of the two workmen before the Labour Court and there was no allegation in their complaint before the Labour Court which is annexure D to the writ application, that their alleged misconduct was connected with the dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, and in the absence of such allegation it is impossible to entertain the argument of learned Counsel that the misconduct for which the two sweepers were punished had any connection with the dispute pending before the Industrial Tribunal. We, therefore, reject the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner on this aspect of the case. 4 For the reasons we have given we hold that the award of the Labour Court D/- the 12th December, 1960, which is annexure F to the writ application, is ultra vires and without jurisdiction and must be set aside by virtue of our authority under Article 227 of the Constitution. We accordingly allow this application, but there will be no order as to costs.