Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. The crucial question which arises for consideration in the instant appeal is whether the case of the appellant Management Company (herein referred as `the Management) is covered by Section 33(1) or 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity `the Act). The Labour Court while ordering restoration of the powers of Purchase Assistant to the workman - respondent No. 2 (herein referred as `the workman), approved the act of the Management terminating the services of the workman on the ground of misconduct. 2. The workman filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1159 of 1996 challenging the order of rejection of reference for his promotion. Later on, he also challenged the order dated 4.4.1996 passed by the Labour Court granting permission for his discharge for the misconduct, by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 14502 of 1996. The learned Single Judge while disallowing CWP No. 1159 of 1996 (claiming promotion) allowed CWP No. 14502 of 1996 (challenging discharge of the workman for alleged misconduct). As such, the Management has come in appeal. At the same time, it also needs mention that the workman has not challenged the order passed in CWP No. 1159 of 1996, rejecting his claim for promotion. 3. Briefly, the allegations are that the workman had been working as a Purchase Assistant and was to be promoted as Purchase Officer. However, instead of promoting him, the Management transferred one Mr. T.S. Saini, Production Supervisor to the Purchase Department and designated him as Officer (Purchase & Stores) in August, 1989. The workman raised his claim before the Labour Court for restoring him his duties of Purchase Assistant. In the meantime, the workman proceeded on leave on account of marriage of his daughter and when rejoined, he was snatched of whole of his work, which was entrusted to Mr. Saini during his leave period. Thus, a reference was made, which was contested by the Management. The Labour Court rejected the contention of the workman while observing that promotion was essentially a matter of Managements policy and the workman was not entitled to claim promotion only if some vacancy existed. Saini during his leave period. Thus, a reference was made, which was contested by the Management. The Labour Court rejected the contention of the workman while observing that promotion was essentially a matter of Managements policy and the workman was not entitled to claim promotion only if some vacancy existed. Similarly, the learned Single Judge upheld the award of Labour Court, while relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case Brooke Bond (India) Private Limited v. Their Workman, 1966(1) LLJ 402, wherein, it was observed that promotion is purely the Managements function though an Industrial Tribunal may interfere on some occasion with promotions made by the Management where it is felt that persons had superseded and it was so done on account of mala fides or victimization. It was further observed that in the absence of such mala fides, the workman cannot claim promotion, particularly when the Management had only utilised the services of a person from their own Management to the post of Purchase Officer. However, the Labour Court confirmed the restoration of status of the workman as Purchase Assistant as the Management had already restored him the duties of Purchase Assistant. 4. With regard to the second contention raised by the workman that he was illegally terminated on the ground of misconduct and the Labour Court had wrongly approved the act of the Management, the learned Single Judge observed that the termination by way of discharge was void for want of proper sanction of the Labour Court, because a reference was already pending. 5. Allegations regarding his discharge, in the background, are that the charge-sheet was served upon the workman on 28.5.1993 regarding three incidents relating to the dates of 6.4.1993, 16.4,1993 and 6.5.1993 when the workman had been directed to do typing work relating to the issuance of purchase order, amendment of the purchase order and some other ancillary works. He refused to obey the command of the superiors, therefore, his act of refusal was construed as subversive to discipline and also constituted habitual neglect of work or gross habitual negligence, which could also be said to be acts of misconduct under the certified Standing Orders applicable to the Establishment. This charge-sheet became the subject matter of enquiry, which resulted in the proof of charge of misconduct of insubordination. This charge-sheet became the subject matter of enquiry, which resulted in the proof of charge of misconduct of insubordination. On the basis of this enquiry report, respondent No.2 was served with an order of discharge from service w.e.f. 24/30.8.1994. The letter also accompanied an amount of compensation equal to one months salary in the shape of a pay order as required under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The management also sought the approval on the same day from the Labour Court. 6. Now, the question arises if the misconduct attributed to the workman was that he had not done the typing work assigned to him, and it was on the basis that typing work was one of the functions of a Purchase Assistant. Section 33(l)(a) prohibits the employer during the pendency of a proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute before a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal from altering to the prejudice of the workman concerned in the dispute, his existing conditions of service. Sub-Section (2) of Section 33, however, permits the employer to alter the conditions of service in regard to any matter not connected with the dispute in accordance with the standing orders applicable to the workman concerned or in accordance with the terms of the contract between the employer and the workman. The right given to the employer under sub-Section (2) is subject () to the condition laid down in sub-Section (3) of Section 33 that the right can be exercised only with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending. Section 33-A of the Act provides that where an employer contravenes the provisions of Section 33 during the pendency of proceedings before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, any employee aggrieved by such contravention may make complaint in writing to such Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, and on receipt of such complaint the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were a dispute referred to it or pending before it in accordance with the provisions of the Act and submit its award to the appropriate Government. Section 31(1) of the Act provides for penalty for contravention of the provisions of Section 33; an employer found guilty of such contravention is punishable with 01 imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with find which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. 7. Once, it is proved that there was an act of misconduct connected with the dispute and termination is made during the pendency of the reference, then it being in violation of the requirement of Section 33(1) of the Act, necessary permission was required to be obtained before discharging the workman. If any misconduct is committed by a workman during the pendency of such proceedings, which is not connected with the dispute and the conditions of service applicable to the workman immediately before the commencement of such proceedings, then the workman could be discharged or dismissed with the payment of wages for one month and the application for approval could be filed before the Authority by the employer. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the acts of misconduct as mentioned by the Management, on the basis of which the workman has been discharged were directly connected with the dispute, consequently prejudicing the workman and the conditions of his service, therefore, the Management ought to have applied for previous sanction before the Labour Court before enquiry or discharge of the services of the workman under Section 33(1) of the Act. Consequently, the order of termination by way of discharge of the workman by the employer without prior sanction of the Tribunal being in apparent violation of the mandatory provisions of the law is void. 8. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.