Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the Management. They have come forward to challenge the advise note given by the Commissioner of Labour dated 14.02.2001. 2. By the said advise, the first respondent Commissioner of Labour informed the Management that pursuant to the strike notice issued by the third respondent Union, conciliation proceedings were pending. The Management was requested to defer the disciplinary action taken against 9 members of the third respondent Union. If any such violation is shown that would amount to contravening Sections 33(1),(2) and (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. The Management challenged the said notice in the first writ petition. 3. Pending the notice, an order of interim stay was granted on 15.05.2001. On 19.09.2003, apprehending that the Board of Directors may be prosecuted, the interim stay already granted was made absolute. 4. Today when the matter came up, the learned counsel for the Management filed an additional affidavit dated 27.02.2010. It was stated that the writ petitions relate to two employees viz., G. Palanimottaiyan and K. Soundararaj. They had started a rival union and raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer stating unfair labour practice allegedly committed by the petitioner Company. The two employees have settled and went on VRS. The third respondent Union is no more in existence as it had got merged with the Naitonal Textile Workers Union, which was recognised by the Management. It was also stated that the said Union has given a letter to the Management addressed to the Labour officer stating that they were not pressing the dispute raised by the third respondent union. 5. However, the first respondent, being a Conciliation officer under the provisions of the I.D. Act even if complaint is made for violation by virtue of Section 33-A(a) of the I.d. Act, he could only take cognizance of the complaint in mediating and promoting the settlement of, such industrial dispute. Unlike Section 33-A (b) of the I.D. Act, the Labour Court, if it seized of any complaint, it can pass an Award as if it is an industrial dispute referred to it. Therefore, when there is no specific power empowered on the first respondent to do anything which can harm the interest of the Management and his power has been circumscribed by Section 33-A (a), the impugned letter can only be taken at the maximum an advise. Therefore, when there is no specific power empowered on the first respondent to do anything which can harm the interest of the Management and his power has been circumscribed by Section 33-A (a), the impugned letter can only be taken at the maximum an advise. Therefore, no cause of action has arisen for challenging the said advise note. 6. In the light of the above and also taking into account the subsequent development set out in the additional affidavit, the writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs.