R. RAMANUJAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is filed by the employees Union of CRIPS Laboratory, visakhapatnam. ( 2 ) THE CRIPS Laboratory - the 2nd respondent herein - (hereinafter referred to as "the Management") is an Industrial establishment within the meaning of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the act ). The Management, which is facing adverse financial conditions, sought to retrench 35 workers belonging to the petitioner-Union and issued notice dated 24-2-2000. On the request made in writing by the said 35 workers, who are members of the petitioner-Union, the Assistant commissioner of Labour, Circle-I, visakhapatnam, 1st respondent herein, admitted the dispute relating to entitlement of the Management to retrench the workers to conciliation, vide his communication rc. No. A/690/2000 dated 25-3-2000. It is an undisputed fact that the conciliation proceedings are still in progress. Apprehending that the workers may be retrenched by the 2nd respondent- management, even during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. ( 3 ) ON 29-3-2000 this Court, while ordering Notice before admission, granted interim direction directing the 2nd respondent-Management not to retrench the workmen, if they are not already retrenched. ( 4 ) THE Management has now come up with a petition - WVMPNo. 926 of 2000 - seeking vacation of the said interim order. ( 5 ) HEARD both sides and with their consent the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage. ( 6 ) AS already noted, the conciliation proceedings before the 1st respondent are now in progress. According to the mandatory provision contained in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act, the Conditions of Service of the workmen cannot be altered to their prejudice pending the conciliation proceedings. ( 7 ) RELYING upon the aforesaid provision, sri N. Krishna Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the Management cannot retrench the workmen as that would amount to changing or altering the service conditions to the prejudice of the workmen within the meaning of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 33 of the Act. ( 8 ) SRI Vedula, Srinivas, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Management, strongly disputes the aforesaid contention. In his submission, Clause (a) of sub-sec. ( 8 ) SRI Vedula, Srinivas, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Management, strongly disputes the aforesaid contention. In his submission, Clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 33 of the Act has no application to the facts of this case inasmuch as retrenchment will not amount to altering the service conditions of the workmen to their prejudice. In other words, what he contends is that retrenchment, pending conciliation proceedings, is not at all comprehended by Section 33 of the Act. ( 9 ) I am not able to agree with the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the Management. The dispute that is taken up for conciliation is the entitlement of the Management to retrench the members of the petitioner-Union. Admittedly that issue is now pending before the 1st respondent. Pending the conciliation proceedings if the Management is permitted to retrench the workmen, the very basis of the dispute will be knocked out defeating the very purpose of the conciliation. Such a course of action is not permissible under the Provisions of the Act. At this juncture it is appropriate to refer to section 33 (l) (a) of the Act, which is as under:"sec. 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 any proceeding before an arbitrator or a Labour Court of 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 proceedings;". A close reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that pending conciliation proceedings the Management cannot alter the conditions of service with regard to any matter connected with the dispute. Since the dispute that is pending conciliation in this case is the entitlement of the Management to retrench the workmen, any attempt by the Management to retrench the workmen would certainly amount to altering the conditions of service in regard to the matter connected with the dispute. Since the dispute that is pending conciliation in this case is the entitlement of the Management to retrench the workmen, any attempt by the Management to retrench the workmen would certainly amount to altering the conditions of service in regard to the matter connected with the dispute. Any other interpretation, in my considered view - particularly the one put forward by the learned Counsel for the Management - will destroy the very spirit of the aforesaid provision, which is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to secure the interest of the workmen pending conciliation proceedings. ( 10 ) FOR the aforementioned reasons, I have no hesitation to hold that pending conciliation proceedings the 2nd respondent-Management cannot retrench the workmen. ( 11 ) COUNSEL for the Management at this stage submitted that the Conciliation officer is not proceeding with the conciliation proceedings with reasonable dispatch and is not conducting any meeting on the ground of pendency of this writ Petition. Counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the said statement. ( 12 ) IN my considered view, the 1st respondent-Conciliation Officer ought not to have deferred the proceedings pending the Writ Petition, as there is no interim order directing him not to proceed with the conciliation proceedings. ( 13 ) IN the aforementioned circumstances, i feel that the ends of justice would be met by directing the 2nd respondent-Management not to retrench the workmen of the petitioner-Union pending the conciliation proceedings. The 1st respondent is directed to proceed with the conciliation proceedings and complete the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( 14 ) WITH the above directions, the Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.