M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THE Management of Motor Industries company Limited has presented this petition questioning the legality of the reference made by the State. Government under section 10 (1) of the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 regarding the dispute concerning the dismissal of the 2nd respondent - ex-employee of the petitioner, for industrial adjudication. ( 2 ) THE contention of the petitioner is, that earlier the 2nd respondent had filed a complaint under Section 33-A of the Act questioning the validity of the same dismissal and as that application was withdrawn, the reference is incompetent. ( 3 ) ANNEXURE-G is the order by which the 2nd respondent was permitted to withdraw the complaint. Relevant portion of it reads:"this is a complaint under Section 33-A of the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947. 2. Inter alia, the complainant contended that his dismissal is illegal and that an award may be passed that the opposite party Management shall reinstate him. 3. The Opposite Party-Mico Management contended that his dismissal is valid and that, he is not entitled to any relief. 4 ). The matter had come up for evidence for to-day. 5. The Complainant has filed a memo stating that he may be permitted to withdraw the complaint reserving liberty to pursue to any other remedy open to him in law. A copy was served on the Opposite Party. There can be no objection for permitting the complainant to withdraw the complaint with the liberty that he may pursue any other remedy open under the law. 6. In the result, an Award is passed that the complaint is permitted to withdraw the complaint with liberty to pursue any other remedy possible"from the contents of the above order, it is clear that the 2nd respondent sought permission to withdraw the complaint reserving liberty to pursue any other remedy open to him in law. Thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute and the same has been referred for industrial adjudication by notification dated 12. 7. Thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute and the same has been referred for industrial adjudication by notification dated 12. 7. 84, Annexure-J. ( 4 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that as a Complaint under Section 33-A of the Act is deemed to be a reference, the withdrawal of the Complaint by the 2nd respondent amounts to giving up the dispute itself and consequently he is barred from raising an industrial dispute in respect of the same subject matter and therefore it was not competent for the Government to refer the same matter for industrial adjudication. ( 5 ) I am unable to agree, A Complaint under Section 33-A of the Act lies only when there is a breach of mandatory conditions precedent imposed by Section 33 of the Act, to be obeyed while terminating services of a workman under circumstances specified in the said Section. If only, any one of those mandatory requirements has not been complied with, a Complaint under section 33-A is maintainable. From this it follows, it is only after the violation of any one of the conditions prescribed under Sec. 33, is established, the Complaint has to be disposed of as if it was a reference. In other words, if the dismissal or termination of service of a workman is after complying with the mandatory requirements, a Complaint under Section 33-A would not be maintainable. However, a workman who is dismissed after complying with all the mandatory requirements prescribed under section 33 can raise an industrial dispute regarding his dismissal on its merits. Therefore, if a complaint under Section 33 is withdrawn by a Complainant, all that it means is the workman-Complainant, instead of relying on a breach of conditions prescribed under Section 33 of the Act, likes to raise a dispute as to the justification for his dismissal. Therefore, in my opinion, the withdrawal of the Complaint under Section 33-A constitutes no bar for raising an industrial dispute. ( 6 ) PETITION is, therefore, rejected. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are number of grounds urged by the petitioner before the government pointing out that there was no case for reference as the 2nd respondent was not a workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. ( 6 ) PETITION is, therefore, rejected. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are number of grounds urged by the petitioner before the government pointing out that there was no case for reference as the 2nd respondent was not a workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Even so, there is no ground to entertain the petition, because, the petitioner will have the liberty of raising all those grounds before the Labour Court. --- *** --- .