Order In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 1.7.04 passed in course of conciliation proceeding. The operative part of the impugned order reads as follows: "Therefore, to honour the provisions under Section 33 of the I.D. Act it is needed to impose the provisions of Section 33 of the I.D. Act, 1947 to provide immediate relief to the workmen without prejudice to any actions of the conciliation proceedings. The Mangement is directed to follow the provisions of Sections 33(1) & .(2) of the I.D. Act. 1947 during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings." (Emphasis supplied) 2. The grievance of the petitioner-Management is that learned Assistant Labour Commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction in giving the said direction to the Management. . 3.. I have heard Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Management and considered the facts and the provisions of Sections 33( 1) &(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947. 4. Sections 33(1) & (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as follows: "33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings.-{1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding before an Arbitrator or a 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 workmen concerned in such dispute, save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending. (2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance with the standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute or, where there are no such standing orders, in accordance with the terms of the contract, whether express or implied, between him and the workman(a) alter, in regard to any matter not connected with the dispute, the conditions of service applicable to that workman immediately before the commencement of such proceeding; or (b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, that workman: Provided that no such workman shall be discharged or dismissed, unless he has been paid wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer.” 5. On plain reading of the provisions of Sections 33(1) & (2) of the LD. Act, 1947, it is manifest that in course of conciliation proceeding, the law is imposed with certain conditions and the said conditions being mandatory in nature have to be followed/complied with. 6. Learned Labour Commissioner has just reminded the said provisions of law to the Management and has not passed any other direction. In view of the nature of the provisions of Sections 33(1) & (2) of the LD. Act, 1947, it is imperative on the Management to follow the said legal conditions. I, therefore, find no ground made out to interfere with the impugned order. 7. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.