A. R. DAVE, J. ( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 18. 12. 1999 passed in I. D. Complaint No. 55/99 by the Labour Court, Junagadh, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the present petition, in a nutshell, are as under :2. 1 the petitioner-University, which has been constituted under the provisions of sec. 3 of Gujarat Agricultural University Act, 1969 had constituted a one-man committee, namely, Dholakia Committee, for the purpose of reconsidering the structure of pay-scale of its administrative staff. The said Committee had made certain recommendations and only on the basis of the said recommendation, pay-scales of certain employees had been increased under an order dated 29. 10. 1999. Subsequently, it was brought to the notice of the Director of Campus by the Comptroller of the petitioner University that the University ought not to have accepted the said recommendations and ought not to have paid higher pay scales to the concerned employees as necessary sanction for increasing the pay-scale had not been granted by the State of Gujarat. The said intimation was given to the Director of Campus by the Comptroller under letter dated 31. 10. 1999. 2. 2 upon an apprehension that the petitioner University might reduce the pay-scale in pursuance of the communication of the Comptroller, the respondent-Union of the employees of the petitioner University had filed I. D. Complaint No. 55/99 before the Labour Court at Junagadh under the provisions of sec. 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). In the said complaint, it was submitted by the respondent-Union that the petitioner University should be restrained from acting in contravention of the order dated 29. 10. 1999, whereby the petitioner University had changed the pay structure of the concerned employees in pursuance of the recommendations made by Dholakia Committee. It was further prayed that the University should be restrained from making any change in service conditions of the concerned employees. 2. 10. 1999, whereby the petitioner University had changed the pay structure of the concerned employees in pursuance of the recommendations made by Dholakia Committee. It was further prayed that the University should be restrained from making any change in service conditions of the concerned employees. 2. 3 the petitioner University had filed written statement in the said complaint admitting that though certain pay-scales had been increased as per the recommendations of Dholakia Committee, the Comptroller of the University had noticed certain irregularities which had taken place while granting the new pay-scales and therefore the Comptroller had strongly recommended that the pay protection should not be granted to the concerned employees by increasing the pay-scales till the State of Gujarat accords sanction to the proposal made by Dholakia Committee. The said recommendation was made to the Director of Campus by the Comptroller under letter dated 31. 10. 1999. In the written statement the petitioner University had also stated the circumstances in which the concerned employees had prayed for pay protection and how the said employees were not entitled to pay protection which was recommended by Dholakia Committee. It had further stated that the petitioner University was not inclined to pay higher pay-scales as per the recommendations made by the Committee but by an interim order passed by the Labour Court in I. D. Complaint No. 55/99, the petitioner University was directed to continue to pay wages as recommended by Dholakia Committee and therefore the petitioner was constrained to continue to make payment as recommended by Dholakia Committee. 2. 4 in the written statement, the petitioner had also submitted that the provisions of sec. 33-A of the Act would apply only if some proceedings were pending before one of the authorities referred to under sec. 33 of the Act. It was specifically stated that the petitioner University was not aware of pendency of any conciliation proceedings or any case before any authority and, therefore, the complaint which was filed by the respondent Union before the Labour Court at Junagadh was not maintainable. 2. 5 the petitioner University had also submitted that the provisions of sec. 33-A of the Act would apply only when there is a change in service conditions and as the service conditions of the concerned workmen had not been changed by the petitioner University, the provisions of sec. 2. 5 the petitioner University had also submitted that the provisions of sec. 33-A of the Act would apply only when there is a change in service conditions and as the service conditions of the concerned workmen had not been changed by the petitioner University, the provisions of sec. 33-A of the Act could not have been invoked by the respondent Union. 2. 6 while opposing the application for the itnerim relief which had been granted by the Labour Court, the petitioner University had also filed its reply and had stated that no proceedings were pending before the Conciliation Officer or any Labour Court and therefore the provisions of sec. 33-A of the Act were not applicable. Moreover, as service conditions of the concerned workmen had not been changed, the provisions of sec. 33-A of the Act could not have been invoked by the respondent Union. It was also stated that the Labour Court was not competent to pass any interim mandatory order and therefore it was prayed, while giving reply to the application for interim relief, that the ex-parte ad-interim relief which was granted by the Labour Court should be vacated. 2. 7 after considering the pleadings and the evidence adduced before the Labour Court, the Labour Court, by an order dated 18. 12. 1999, granted the application and directed the petitioner not to make any change in the pay structure or pay of the concerned employees. ( 3 ) LEARNED advocate Shri D. G. Chauhan appearing for the petitioner has challenged the validity of the impugned order on the ground that the complaint which was filed by the respondent union before the Labour Court was not maintainable. He has also drawn attention of this Court to the provisions of sec. 33-A of the Act and has submitted that the provisions of sec. 33-A of the Act can be invoked only if some proceedings are pending before the Conciliation Officer, Board, Arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribual or National Tribunal and during the pendency of the proceedings, the employer contravenes the provisions of sec. 33 of the Act. ( 4 ) IT has been submitted by him that at the time when the respondent-union had filed the complaint, no conciliation proceedings were pending before any authority referred to in sec. 33-A of the Act. 33 of the Act. ( 4 ) IT has been submitted by him that at the time when the respondent-union had filed the complaint, no conciliation proceedings were pending before any authority referred to in sec. 33-A of the Act. In the circumstances, it was not open to the Labour Court to entertain the complaint filed under the provisions of sec. 33-A of the Act. It has been further submitted by him that no change was affected in the service conditions of the members of the respondent-union by the petitioner-University at the time when the respondent-union had approached the Labour Court by filing the complaint. As no cause of action had actually arisen at the time when the complaint was filed, according to the learned advocate, it was not open to the Labour Court to entertain the complaint. ( 5 ) LASTLY, it has been submitted by the learned advocate that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to grant any injunction or an order in the nature of injunction and therefore also the impugned order is bad in law. ( 6 ) THE learned advocate has tried to substantiate his above-referred submissions by referring to some judgments. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, learned advocate Shri Supehia has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is absolutely just, legal and proper and there is no reason for this court to interfere with the said order in its writ jurisdiction. He has mainly relied upon a copy of letter dated 15. 8. 99 (Annexure A to the affidavit-in-reply ). As per the said letter, according to the learned advocate, conciliation proceedings had already been initiated. The said letter was addressed to the Asst. Commissioner of Labour by the Secretary of the respondent union and according to the submission made by the learned advocate, the moment the Conciliation Officer received the said communication from the respondent union, as per the provisions of the Act, the conciliation proceedings had commenced. As under letter dated 15. 8. 99, demands were raised before the Conciliation officer and as existence of the said letter was never denied by the petitioner-University, it was not open to the petitioner-University to submit that no conciliation proceedings were pending at the time when the complaint was filed. As under letter dated 15. 8. 99, demands were raised before the Conciliation officer and as existence of the said letter was never denied by the petitioner-University, it was not open to the petitioner-University to submit that no conciliation proceedings were pending at the time when the complaint was filed. ( 8 ) IT has been further submitted by him that Dholakia Committees report had already been accepted by the petitioner-University and had also been acted upon. The pay-scales were accordingly revised on higher side and, therefore, it was not open to the petitioner-University to take any unilateral decision for reducing the pay-scales and by reducing the pay-scales, the petitioner-University was to commit an illegality and therefore the Labour Court had rightly directed the petitioner-University by the impugned order that the pay-scales of the concerned employees should not be reduced. ( 9 ) THE learned advocate has also submitted that the University had also asked for an opinion of Shri Mehta, a Consultant, who had opined that the recommendations made by Dholakia Committee were just and proper and in view of the said opinion given by Shri Mehta, it was not proper on the part of the petitioner University to reduce the pay-scales or to act in contravention of the report submitted by Dholakia Committee. Thus, it has been submitted by the learned advocate that the impugned order is just and proper and therefore the petition deserves rejection. ( 10 ) I have heard the learned advocates at length and have also perused the judgments relied upon by learned advocate Shri Chauhan appearing for the petitioner. ( 11 ) UPON perusal of the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that Dholakia Committee had made certain recommendations and in pursuance thereof, without getting any sanction from the State Government, the Director of Campus had implemented the recommendations made by the Committee. As implementation of the recommendations made by the Committee was not proper, the Comptroller of the petitioner-University had drawn attention of the Director of Campus to the illegality or irregularity committed by the University and had requested him not to act upon the recommendations and to rectify the mistake committed by the Director of Campus whereby revised or increased pay-scales were given to the concerned employees of the petitioner-University. It is also not in dispute that the recommendations made by the Committee were not directory in nature and it was not obligatory on the part of the University to accept the same and revise the pay-scale accordingly. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner University is getting financial aid from the State of Gujarat and it is obligatory on the part of the petitioner University to take sanction of the State of Gujarat before increasing pay-scales of its employees. ( 12 ) NOW, the question is with regard to maintainability of the complaint filed by the respondent in the Labour Court. The said complaint has been filed u/s 33-A of the Act. The said section reads as under :"33-A Special provision for adjudication as to whether conditions of service, etc. , changed during pendency of proceedings.- Where an employer contravenes the provisions of Sec. 33 during the pendency of proceedings before a Conciliation Officer, Board, an arbitrator, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal any employee aggrieved by such contravention, may make a complaint in writing in the prescribed manner.- (A) to such Conciliation Officer or Board, and the Conciliation Officer or Board shall take such complaint into account in mediating in, and promoting the settlement of, such industrial dispute; and (B) to such arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal and on receipt of such complaint, the arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, 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 his or its award to the appropriate Government and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly. "upon plain reading of the said section, it is very clear that when an employer contravenes the provisions of sec. 33 during the pendency of proceedings before the Conciliation Officer, Board, an arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, any employee aggrieved by the said contravention can make a complaint in writing in the prescribed manner to the authority before whom the proceedings are pending and in such an event, the concerned authority has to act as per the provisions of sec. 33a (a) or (b) of the Act. ( 13 ) THE following conditions must be satisfied before any complaint under the provisions of sec. 33a (a) or (b) of the Act. ( 13 ) THE following conditions must be satisfied before any complaint under the provisions of sec. 33a of the Act is to be entertained : (A) Proceedings referred to in sec. 33 (1) of the Act must be pending before a Conciliation Officer or a Board of Conciliation constituted under the Act or an arbitrator or a Labour Court or a Tribunal or the National Tribunal. (B) There should be actual contravention of the provisions of sec. 33 of the Act by the employer. (C) Complaint should have been made in writing and in the prescribed manner by the aggrieved employee. ( 14 ) IN the instant case, as per the submission made by the learned advocate for the respondent union, conciliation proceedings were pending before the Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Junagadh, and during the pendency of the said procedings, the petitioner-University had contravened the provisions of sec. 33a of the Act and therfore the complaint filed before the Labour Court, Junagadh was maintainable. ( 15 ) NOW, let us examine whether the aforesaid statement and submission made by the learned advocate for the respondent union is correct. ( 16 ) ACCORDING to sec. 2 (e), "conciliation proceeding" means any proceeding held by a Conciliation Officer or Board under the Act. ( 17 ) SECTION 12 of the Act and rules 10 and 11 of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) pertain to powers, procedure and duties of the Conciliation Officer. Rule 10 of the Rules pertain to conciliation proceedings in public utility service when a notice of strike or lockout is given whereas Rule 11 pertains to conciliation proceedings in other cases. The said rule is reproduced hereinbelow:"11. Conciliation proceedings in other cases. Where the conciliation officer receives any information about an existing or apprehended industrial dispute which relates to a public utility service but no notice of strike or lockout is given under rule 76 or rule 77 where the industrial dispute does not relate to a public utility service, and he considered it necessary to intervene in the dispute, he shall give formal intimation in writing to the parties concerned declaring his intention to commence conciliation proceedings with effect from such date as may be specified therein. " ( 18 ) CONCILIATION proceedings cannot be said to be pending unless conciliation proceedings have been initiated or something has been done for initiation of conciliation proceedings as per rule 11 of the Rules. ( 19 ) RULE 11 clearly states that when the Conciliation Officer receives any information about an existing or apprehended industrial dispute and he considers it necessary to intervene in the dispute, he shall (i) give formal intimation in writing to the parties concerned and shall (ii) declare his intention to commence conciliation proceedings, (iii) with effect from such date as may be specified in the written intimation. ( 20 ) IF we look at rule 11, it is very clear that simply when the Conciliation Officer receives information about an existing or apprehended industrial dispute, conciliation proceedings cannot be said to have commenced automatically. The Conciliation Officer has to act as per the provisions of rule 11 upon receiving the information about an existing or apprehended industrial dispute. Upon perusal of the said rule, it is very clear that the Conciliation Officer has to apply his mind on the information received by him with regard to an existing or apprehended dispute. If only he considers it necessary to intervene in the dispute, he has to give a formal intimation in writing to the concerned parties declaring his intention to commence the conciliation proceedings and he has also to intimate the date with effect from which the conciliation proceedings are to commence. Thus, if the Conciliation Officer is of the view that conciliation proceedings should not be initiated, he need not write any letter to any of the parties and if no such letter is written, the parties have to presume that the Conciliation Officer did not think it proper to intervene. He has to take the said decision within reasonable period. If within reasonable period he does not declare his intention and intimate the same to the concerned parties, the aggrieved party has to presume that the Conciliation Officer has no intention to initiate conciliation proceedings. In the instant case, upon receipt of the letter dated 15. 8. 99 from the respondent union, the Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Junagadh has admittedly not given any formal intimation in writing to any of the parties and therefore by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the said officer had initiated conciliation proceedings. . In the instant case, upon receipt of the letter dated 15. 8. 99 from the respondent union, the Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Junagadh has admittedly not given any formal intimation in writing to any of the parties and therefore by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the said officer had initiated conciliation proceedings. . ( 21 ) AS stated hereinabove, pendency of conciliation proceedings is a condition precedent for filing a complaint under the provisions of sec. 33-A of the Act. It is also very clear from the said provisions that not only conciliation proceedings should be pending, but the employer should also contravene the provisions of sec. 33 of the Act during the pendency of the proceedings. Moreover, the complaint under the provisions of sec. 33-A of the Act is to be filed in writing in the prescribed manner to such Conciliation Officer, Board, etc. before whom the proceedings are pending. ( 22 ) IN the present case, the respondent union had addressed a letter dated 15th August 1999 to the Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Junagadh wherein some demands were raised. Learned advocate Shri Supehia has submitted that as the respondent union had approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour under its letter dated 15. 8. 99, conciliation proceedings had been initiated. It has been submitted by learned advocate Shri Chauhan appearing for the petitioner that though it has been mentioned in the said letter that a copy of the said letter was endorsed to the Director, Agricultural University and to the Chancellor of Gujarat Agricultural University, neither of the authorities had received a copy of the said letter. In my opinion, receipt of the copy by the concerned authority is not much relevant in the instant case because, admittedly, the Asst. Commissioner of Labour has not addressed any letter till today to any of the parties declaring his intention to commence conciliation proceedings as required under rule 11 of the Rules. It is not in dispute that the Asst. Commissioner of Labour did not write any letter or did not give any formal intimation in writing as required under rule 11 of the Rules to the parties concerned declaring his intention to commence conciliation proceedings with effect from a particular date. Thus, it is very clear that the Asst. It is not in dispute that the Asst. Commissioner of Labour did not write any letter or did not give any formal intimation in writing as required under rule 11 of the Rules to the parties concerned declaring his intention to commence conciliation proceedings with effect from a particular date. Thus, it is very clear that the Asst. Commissioner of Labour did not think it proper to intervene in the dispute and therefore he did not commence the conciliation proceedings. ( 23 ) THUS, it is very clear that no proceedings were pending at the time when the complaint under the provisions of sec. 33-A of the Act had been filed before the Labour Court. ( 24 ) EVEN if some proceedings were pending before the Conciliation Officer, as per the provisions of sec. 33-A of the Act, the respondent union ought not to have approached the Labour Court, but ought to have approached the Conciliation Officer before whom the conciliation proceedings were pending. The respondent union ought to have established that there was a breach of the provisions of sec. 33 and in that event only a complaint made under sec. 33-A could have been entertained by the authority before whom the conciliation proceedings were pending. Thus, in any case, the respondent union was not justified in filing a complaint under the provisions of sec. 33-A of the Act before the Labour Court and in my opinion, the Labour Court was not justified in entertaining the complaint especially in view of the written statement filed by the petitioner University wherein it was clearly stated that no conciliation proceedings were pending before any authority and in reply to the said written statement the respondent union had not adduced any evidence before the Labour Court that conciliation proceedings were pending somewhere. As stated hereinabove, even if conciliation proceedings were pending before the Conciliation Officer, the Labour Court ought to have been rejected the complaint because such a complaint was not maintainable before the Labour Court in view of the fact the complaint ought to have filed before the Conciliation Officer before whom the conciliation proceedings were pending. As stated hereinabove, even if conciliation proceedings were pending before the Conciliation Officer, the Labour Court ought to have been rejected the complaint because such a complaint was not maintainable before the Labour Court in view of the fact the complaint ought to have filed before the Conciliation Officer before whom the conciliation proceedings were pending. ( 25 ) IN view of the fact no proceedings were pending before the Labour Court at the time when the complaint was filed, the complaint filed before the Labour Court was not maintainable and therefore the impugned order passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. ( 26 ) THE question whether the Labour Court could have passed the impugned order or could have granted injunction, is academic in view of the fact that the Labour Court ought not to have entertained the complaint. However, looking to the settled legal provision, it was also not proper on the part of the Labour Court to pass the impugned order in favour of the respondent union. It has been observed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of The Management, Hotel Imperial v. Hotel Workers Union, AIR 1959 SC 1342 that ". . . . . . . . . ordinarily, interim relief should not be the whole relief that the workmen would get if they succeeded finally. " Moreover, unless there is actual contravention of the provisions of sec. 33 of the Act, complaint under sec. 33a cannot be entertained. In the instant case, in fact, there was no order whereby pay-scales of the concerned employees had been reduced and therefore even if the conciliation proceedings had been pending and the complaint had been filed before him, he could not have entertained the complaint on mere apprehension of the respondent union in absence of actual reduction of the pay-scales beause sec. 33a of the Act does not contemplate grant of any relief for prevention of any apprehended contravention of sec. 33 of the Act. ( 27 ) FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, in my opinion, the Labour Court, Junagadh, had exceeded its jurisdiction while entertaining I. D. Complaint No. 55/99 and therefore the impugned order passed by the Labour Court dated 18. 12. 99 is quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Ad-interim relief stands vacated. .