Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition has been preferred by the Employees Union of the Madras Atomic Power Station Kalpakkam for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the circular of the first Respondent dated 011. 1999 and to quash the same and to direct the first respondent to forbear from reducing the number of national and festival holidays from 17 days till the disposal of the Industrial Dispute with respect of the subject matter. 2. Factual matrix necessary for the disposal of the Writ Petition are as under :- (a) The petitioner Union is a recognized Trade Union consisting of workmen employed in the first respondent Corporation. The employees of the first Respondent had been in enjoyment of 17 National and Festival holidays from 1992. Out of 17 holidays, 3 days are National Holidays. Fixed National Holidays are Republic Day, Independence Day and Gandhi Jayanthi. 14 Festival Holidays were decided in consultation and agreement with the petitioner union. Therefore, the list of 14 holidays differed from year to year. List of holidays for the succeeding year used to be decided in advance in consultation and agreement with the Union and the holidays so arrived at would be published during November every year. Similarly, after holding talks with the petitioner Union, list of 17 days holidays for the year 1999 was published by the first Respondent as per their circular dated 111. 1998. Tamil New Years day which falls on 14. 1999 was not the one among the listed holiday for the year 1999. (b) While the matter stood thus, the first Respondent issued a notice dated 07.04.1999 purporting to be under Section 9A, proposing to reduce the number of holidays from 17 to 16. The said action was objected to by the petitioner Union and they have taken up the matter by way of Industrial Dispute before the second Respondent. In the meantime, Government of India declared 14.04.1999 as a holiday on account of the birthday of Dr.B.R. AmbedKar. At that time, the first Respondent issued a circular dated 13.04.1999 stating that it was decided to observe 14.04.1999 as a holiday on account of birthday of Dr.B.R. Ambedkar in partial modification of the circular dated 111. 1998. It was also stated that the forthcoming holidays communicated vide circular dated 111. 1998 would be reviewed and regulated by the first Respondent. 1998. It was also stated that the forthcoming holidays communicated vide circular dated 111. 1998 would be reviewed and regulated by the first Respondent. The said action was objected to by the petitioner as per their representation dated 15.04.1999 on the ground that the Management cannot unilaterally withdraw and alter the list of holidays issued on 111. 1998. Tamil New Year Day on 14.04.1997 was once of the 17 holidays declared by the first respondent on mutual agreement but the Management declared 14. 1997 as holiday for the birthday of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar instead of Tamil New Years day. In the representation submitted by the petitioner to the Management it was made clear that that the list of holidays for the year 1999 was issued on 111. 1998 in consultation with the Union and hence, it was improper on the part of the first Respondent to modify the said list of holidays without consulting the Union. (c) In pursuance of the request given by the petitioner to modify the list of holidays and to withdraw the circular dated 14. 1999, conciliation proceedings were initiated and the same took place on different dates. The first Respondent filed their remarks before the Conciliation Officer on 03.05.1999. When the conciliation proceeding was pending before the second Respondent relating to the Industrial Dispute in respect of rejection of holidays, Management sent a letter dated 03.08.1999 to the petitioner Union stating that the Govardhan Pooja which falls on 011. 1999 would be a working day though it was notified as a holiday in circular dated 111. 1998. Immediately, the petitioner submitted a reply to the first Respondent on 11.08.1999 requesting the management to abstain from acting unilaterally in deciding the holidays, particularly when the issue was pending before the Conciliation Officer. The matter was also taken up by the petitioner with the second Respondent requesting them to interfere in the matter and to advice the Management to maintain status quo during the process of conciliation. (d) During the pendency of conciliation proceeding, the Management issued a circular dated 011. 1999 stating that 011. 1999 which was declared as a holiday for Govardhan Pooja stood withdrawn and it would be a working day. Immediately, the petitioner submitted a representation to the first Respondent again with a prayer to abstain from deleting holiday for Govardhan Pooja on 011. 1999 as notified in the circular dated 111. 1998. 1999 stating that 011. 1999 which was declared as a holiday for Govardhan Pooja stood withdrawn and it would be a working day. Immediately, the petitioner submitted a representation to the first Respondent again with a prayer to abstain from deleting holiday for Govardhan Pooja on 011. 1999 as notified in the circular dated 111. 1998. , (e) Subsequently, the Management issued a circular dated 011. 1999 stating that the withdrawal of holidays on 011. 1999 for Govardhan Pooja by their circular dated 011. 1999 was in order. It was further stated that in case any of the employees failed to attend duty on 011. 1999, action would be taken against them by applying the principle of No work, no pay". (f) Even though the petitioner again submitted representation to the first Respondent to withdraw the impugned circular, the same was not adhered to and accordingly, the petitioner has come up with the Writ Petition challenging the impugned circular dated 011. 1999. 3. Though the Writ Petition was admitted in the year 1999, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent, 4. Thiru. Hariparandaman, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the very action in issuing the impugned circular by the first Respondent is violative of the provisions of Industrial Dispute as admittedly, conciliation process was going on as on the date on which the circular was issued. It was the further contention of the learned Counsel that the dispute though related to the holiday for one day, the matter involves relationship between the employer and the employee as well as the sanctity of conciliation proceeding and as such, the first Respondent was not justified in issuing the impugned circular during the pendency of such conciliation proceeding. 5. It is found from the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition as well as the documents produced in the typed set of papers that there was a conciliation proceeding going on between the petitioner and the first Respondent before the second Respondent. The impugned circular was issued on 11. 1999 and the conciliation proceeding was very much pending as on the said date. As per Sec.19 of the Industrial Disputes Act, conciliation is deemed to be pending until receipt of failure report by the appropriate Government. The impugned circular was issued on 11. 1999 and the conciliation proceeding was very much pending as on the said date. As per Sec.19 of the Industrial Disputes Act, conciliation is deemed to be pending until receipt of failure report by the appropriate Government. There is nothing to indicate that the appropriate Government has received the failure report from the Conciliation Officer as on 11. 1999 on which date, the impugned circular was issued by the first Respondent. 6. The Industrial Disputes Act is a self contained Code dealing with the settlement of dispute between the employer and employee and the various procedures relating to the resolution of such dispute as well as the requirements to be complied with by between the employer and employee during the pendency of various proceedings under the said Code. The process of conciliation is found to be an effective method of resolution of dispute and as such, the Industrial Disputes Act made provision for conciliation as a procedure for the purpose of resolution of disputes. It was only for the purpose of avoiding any further confrontation during the pendency of the conciliation proceeding that Sec.33 has been incorporated in the Industrial Disputes Act which provides that during the pendency of the conciliation proceeding, no employer shall alter the service condition or in case of misconduct, to take further action to punish the delinquent. Sec.33 (1) reads interalia as under "33. Conditions of service, etc. to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings: .(1) During the pendency of the conciliation proceedings before (an Arbitrator or Conciliation Officer of the Board or of any proceeding before any 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 workman concerned in such dispute; save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending." 7. The provision as contained in Sec. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act is made of the purpose of maintaining status quo as on the date on which the dispute has arisen. The provision as contained in Sec. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act is made of the purpose of maintaining status quo as on the date on which the dispute has arisen. The said provision mandates that the employer shall not aggravate the situation inasmuch as further action during the pendency of the conciliation was not conducive for resolution of dispute between the parties. When the parties are before the negotiating table under the Presidentship of the conciliation officer, no action shall be taken by the employer to precipitate the matter inasmuch as the industrial peace is the rule and the Industrial dispute is only an exception. The Conciliation Officer who is authorized to look into the dispute should have a congenial atmosphere for taking up the matter. The role of Conciliation Officer in the matter of a dispute is substantial as he has to bring two contending parties before the negotiating table and to make them agree to a particular term for the purpose of settlement in the interest of employer as well as employee and for maintaining industrial peace. 8. Therefore, Sec.33 (1) A cast a statutory requirement on the part of the employer to abstain from altering the service condition to the detriment of the workmen during the pendency of the conciliation proceeding either before the conciliation officer or before the Labour Court / Tribunal. 9. In Arasu Viraivu Pokkuvarathu Oozhiyar Sangam rep. by its General Secretary v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. Chennai & Ors. (2006 (3) LLJ 245), a Division Bench of this Court considered the scope and ambit of Sec.33(1)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act and held that action taken by the employer to implement the changes proposed under Section 9-A after the commencement of, conciliation proceeding, violates the provisions of Section 33(1) as conciliation proceedings are not concluded till the report of the Conciliation Officer is received by the appropriate Government. The Division Bench also held that any order passed in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 33 of the Act is per-se void and inoperative. 10. In the present case, admittedly, conciliation was pending as on the date on which the impugned circular has been issued by the first Respondent and the said circular had the effect of altering the service condition of the employee covered by the earlier settlement. 10. In the present case, admittedly, conciliation was pending as on the date on which the impugned circular has been issued by the first Respondent and the said circular had the effect of altering the service condition of the employee covered by the earlier settlement. The first Respondent has absolutely no authority to alter the service conditions during the process of conciliation. Therefore, the impugned circular is per se void and inoperative on account of the specific bar as contained in Sec.33(1) of the I.D.Act. 11. In view of the reasons aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the impugned circular is liable to be quashed. 12. In the result, the impugned Circular No.23/99 dated 11. 1999 on the file of the first Respondent is quashed. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.