Order The Labour Court by its award dated 15.4.1995 passed under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 held that the discharge of the respondent workman from the service of the appellant was contrary to Section 33 as it has been done without express permission in writing of the Labour Court where a dispute regarding validity of the reversion of the workman was pending on the date of the aforesaid discharge. As a result of the above, two directions were issued by the Labour Court: (i) Reinstatement of the workman with full back wages and other benefits. (ii) Prosecution of the Management for violation of Section 33. 2. The Management approached this Court by way of CWJC No. 2290 of 1995(R)* which was partly allowed' by the impugned judgment dated 15.9.2003 by a learned Single Judge. 3. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order set aside the direction of the Labour Court with regard to the prosecution of the Management on the ground that violation of Section 33 was not deliberate as the Management withdrew the discharge order as soon as the Management realised that it was in violation of Section 33. 4. However, the other direction of the Labour Court has not been interfered with by the learned Single Judge. 5. Being aggrieved, the Management has filed this L.P.A. 6. The contention of the Management before this Court is that after the withdrawal of the discharge order by the Management the proceedings under Section 33-A should have been abated as• in-fructuous and no direction should have been issued by the Labour Court. 7. We are unable to agree. Section 33-A says that where the conditions of service of the workman have been altered during the pendency of the proceedings under the Act without express permission in writing of the authority before whom the proceedings are pending, the same would be contrary to the Section 33. 8. And in such an event, according to Section 33-A a complaint may made by the workman with regard to contravention of Section 33, and such complaint shall be treated as if it was a reference under the Act. 9. In the present case the workman complained under Section 33-A alleging that his termination dated 17.11.1989 was not valid as it was in contravention of Section 33. 10. 9. In the present case the workman complained under Section 33-A alleging that his termination dated 17.11.1989 was not valid as it was in contravention of Section 33. 10. The aforesaid question would have to be treated as a reference and what has to be examined is whether it is open to the Management, by withdrawal of the impugned order, to get the reference abated as in-fructuous. 11. In our opinion, such view of the law would have very undesirable effect in as much as getting a reference made to the Labour Court is a long drawn procedure starting from the stage of conciliation. Taking the view suggested from the side of the appellant would give a very undesirable handle in the hands of an unscrupulous Management of making references in-fructuous after the references have been obtained through the long drawn procedure by the comparatively handicapped workman. A withdrawal of the impugned order and passing of a fresh order would mean subjecting the workman to the same long drawn procedure for obtaining a second reference which can again be made in-fructuous in the same manner by one stroke of pen of the Management. 12. Therefore, once a reference has been made', it has to be decided on merits. In litigation the rights of the parties as on the date of the commencement of the litigation are to be adjudicated. No party can be allowed to non-suit the other side by such actions. 13. However, after the withdrawal of the discharge order dated 17.11.1989 the Management has passed a fresh order of discharge or termination after applying for the necessary approval under Section 33. This discharge order is dated 17.4.1990. The issue about the validity of this second discharge order dated 17.4.1990 is now pending in the form of a separate writ petition in which so far the management has not been able to obtain any interim order. This discharge order is dated 17.4.1990. The issue about the validity of this second discharge order dated 17.4.1990 is now pending in the form of a separate writ petition in which so far the management has not been able to obtain any interim order. Till such time as the second termination order dated 17.4.1990 is not stayed or set aside in the said pending Writ Petition of the Management, the benefits of reinstatement and full back wages' alongwith the other benefits awarded by the Labour Court by its award dated 15.04.1995 will have to be given to the workman by the Management, If the second discharge order dated 17.4.1990 which has been impliedly not approved by the Labour Court is stayed or set aside, the continuance of the benefits of the award dated 15.04.1995 will depend upon the terms of the interim or final order so passed. 14. Subject to above, this appeal is disposed of.