Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner-management namely, Steel Authority of India Ltd. challenging the award passed by the respondent No. 1 Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi dated July 18, 1992 in Misc. Case No. 2/89, whereby and whereunder, he has allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 2, the workman purported to be under Sec. 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and further for a direction restraining the respondents from giving effect to or acting in pursuance to the said award. 2. The fact of the case lies in a narrow compass. 3. The workman concerned raised an industrial dispute which was registered as Reference Case No. 4/88 and the terms of reference was "whether the demand of increase in Labour Welfare Inspector and Senior Labour Welfare Inspectors engaged in Bokaro Steel Plant is justified? If so, what should be their pay-scale and from when it should be enforced?" While the said reference case was pending, the workman concerned filed a complaint under Sec. 33-A of the said Act before the Tribunal contending, inter alia that the complainants are reporting to Deputy Manager (Personnel) and Deputy Chief Personnel Manager from the very beginning and never to Junior Manager (Personnel). It was also contended that the management attempted to change the relationship of these workman which they object during the conciliation proceeding. On being noticed, the management instead of filing rejoinder to the complaint made by the workman issued office order dated January, 9/10, 1989 disturbing the existing relationship of the workmen. The Management also issued office order dated March 13, 1989 and March 15, 1989 promoting some of the Sr. Labour Inspector to E-O scale. The petitioner-management however, filed written statement stating, inter alia, that placing non-executives under Executives of lower rank cannot and does not amount to change in service conditions. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, allowed the complaint filed by the workman concerned under Sec. 33-A of the Act and the office orders dated March 13, 1989 and March 15, 1989 have been made non-operative. 4. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-management, assailed the impugned order as being illegal and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. 4. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-management, assailed the impugned order as being illegal and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. Learned counsel firstly submitted that the change in reporting relationship admittedly took place in the year 1987 and it has no connection with the issue involved in Reference Case No. 4/1988. Learned counsel submitted that contravention of Sec. 33 of the Act is a sine-qua-non for maintainability of the proceeding under Sec. 33-A of the Act. Learned counsel then submitted that the Tribunal has committed serious error of law insofar as it failed to take into consideration that Sec. 33 of the Act envisages not only change in service conditions but the said change is prejudicial to the workmen concerned. Learned counsel further submitted that neither any finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that the change in reporting from Deputy Manager to Assistant Manager will amount to change in service nor is there any finding that workman concerned will be prejudicially effected by the said change. 5. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Sr. counsel for the workmen concerned, submitted that the Tribunal after considering all the evidence recorded a finding that shifting of reporting officer will amount to change in conditions of service. Learned counsel further submitted that in fact the management has changed the service conditions of the workman inasmuch as the management degraded the position of promotion of the non-executive to Executive after introducing the grade E-O. 6. Before appreciating the rival contentions of the parties, it would be useful to refer the relevant provision of the Industrial Disputes Act. 7. Sec. 33 of the Act provides that during the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding before the Labour Court or a Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer shall not after the conditions of service in regard to any matter connected with the dispute to the prejudice of the workman concerned in such dispute and further that the employer shall not discharge or punish any workman concerned in such dispute for any misconduct connected with the dispute. 8. Sub-sec. 8. Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 33 further provides that the employer shall not take any action against the workman concerned in such dispute during the pendency of such proceeding after altering the conditions of service applicable to him before the commencement of such proceeding to the prejudice of such protected workman. 9. I have gone through the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, who has formulated the following two points for consideration: (1) whether the change in reporting relationship is the change in service conditions of the complainant and (2) whether the promotion of the complainant from non-executive to Executive in E-O amounts to decrees in the scale. Although the Tribunal relying upon the evidence of the workmen has come to the conclusion that the management has changed the service conditions of the complainant by making a change in reporting relationship as well as degrading the position on promotion of the non- executive to Executive. However, no finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that these workmen were parties to the Reference Case and the dispute for which Refcrcnee Case No. 4/88 was pending. The Tribunal has also not recorded a positive finding that promotion from E-1 to E-O is prejudicial to the workmen concerned. From perusal of terms of Reference Case No. 4/88, it appears that the the dispute under reference was whether the demand of increase in pay-scale of Labour Welfare Inspector and Sr. Labour Welfare Inspector engaged in Bokaro Steel Plant is justified. It is, therefore, evident that promotion scheme or change in the reporting relationship was never the subject-matter of dispute in Reference Case No. 4/88. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has committed error of law in passing the impugned award and making the office orders non-operative. 10. Be that as it may, by the impugned award the office orders dated March 13, 1989 and March 15, 1989 were made non-operative till the disposal of the Reference Case No. 4/88. On question, Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the concerned workmen, informed this Court that the aforesaid reference case has been decided by the Labour Court in favour of the management. In that view of the matter also the impugned award lost its force. 11. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case. On question, Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the concerned workmen, informed this Court that the aforesaid reference case has been decided by the Labour Court in favour of the management. In that view of the matter also the impugned award lost its force. 11. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case. I am of the opinion that the impugned award suffers from serious error of law and is, therefore, fit to be quashed. 12. In the result, this writ application is allowed and the impugned award dated July 18, 1992 passed by the Tribunal is hereby quashed. However, there will be no order as to costs.