ORDER By this Court - In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Award dated 31.07.1996 rendered by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, in Misc. Case No. 5 of 1992, whereby the learned Labour Court has directed to promote the Respondent No. 2 with effect from 19.12.1973 to the post of Stores Officer (E2), with effect from 05.08.1976 to the post of Deputy Manager (E3), with effect from 30.08.1978 to the post of Manager (E4), with effect from 01.10.1984 to the post of Deputy Chief Material Manager (E5), with effect from 31.12.1987 to the post of Addl. Chief Material Manager (E6) and with effect from 31.12.1990 and to pay him the difference of pay and other benefits. 2. The said Award has been mainly challenged on the ground that the learned Labour Court has illegally exercised jurisdiction under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in rendering the said Award. The court has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 33A when there is violation of provisions of Section 33 of the said Act. In the instant case, there was no violation of Section 33 of the Act, as such application under Section 33A filed by the concerned workmen is not maintainable. 3. It has been stated that when the proceeding was initiated on the application of the concerned workmen purportedly under Section 33A of the said Act, the writ petitioner had seriously raised the preliminary issue of maintainability of the application by filing an application (Annexure2). They also requested the learned Labour Court to decide the preliminary issue of maintainability of the application under Section 33A. But the said application was rejected by order dated 24.01.1994, on the ground that all the issues will be decided at the same time in order to avoid piecemeal hearing in deciding the preliminary issue. The petitioner contended that the Misc. Case No. 5 of 1992 was filed by the respondent-workmen, on the ground that his service condition was changed during pendency of Reference Case No. 39 of 1973. According to the concerned workmen, he was given promotion to the post of Executive Assistant GradeI with effect from 01.03.1972, whereas several persons junior to him were put at par with him, which amounts to alteration in his service conditions during pendency of Reference Case No. 39 of 1973. According to the concerned workmen, he was given promotion to the post of Executive Assistant GradeI with effect from 01.03.1972, whereas several persons junior to him were put at par with him, which amounts to alteration in his service conditions during pendency of Reference Case No. 39 of 1973. According to the petitioner, admittedly, the promotion was given with effect from 01.03.1972 whereas Reference Case was of 1973, therefore, Reference Case No. 39 of 1973 was not pending in 1972 when promotion was given. In view thereof, the said promotion order does not attract the provisions of Section 33. In that view also, the application of the concerned workmen under Section 33 was not entertainable. It has been further contended that in the cases arising on the similar facts, the learned Labour Court has given a common Award in Misc. Case Nos. 3/91, 4/91, 5/91, 6/91, 7/91, 8/91, 1/92, 2/92, 3/92 and in other Misc. Cases holding that the service conditions of the workmen concerned in those cases were violated, as they were superseded to their juniors during pendency of Reference Case No. 39 of 1973 and had directed the Management to give promotion with effect from the date their juniors were promoted. The said Award was challenged by the petitioner in several writ petitions being C.W.J.C. Nos. 140/95(R), 141/95(R), 142/95(R), 143/95(R), 144/95(R), 146/95(R), 147/95(R), 148/95(R) and 150/95(R) as also in C.W.J.C. No. 1485/91(R). The Division Bench which heard the matter had considered the facts and materials in detail and held that the dispute in Reference Case No. 39 of 1973 was regarding promotion to the higher posts, had no nexus with the subject matter of the pending dispute in Reference Case No. 39 of 1973 and the alleged supersession of the workmen cannot be said to be an alteration of the service conditions to their prejudice in a matter connected with the pending dispute. The said judgment was contested up to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11360 of 1995, along with other Civil Appeals. The Supreme Court after going into the matter in detail did not interfere with the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, as then was. 4. Mr. The said judgment was contested up to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11360 of 1995, along with other Civil Appeals. The Supreme Court after going into the matter in detail did not interfere with the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, as then was. 4. Mr. Baban Lal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned Award is contrary to the said findings of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court and the Supreme Court and is wholly illegal and erroneous. Learned Labour Court has wrongly held that since the promotion was a subject matter of industrial dispute in Reference Case No. 39 of 1973, supersession of the workmen as Respondent No. 2 amounts to change in condition of service during pendency of the said Reference Case. Learned counsel submitted that in the said case, neither promotion was a subject matter nor promotion of any junior to the petitioner was violative of any conditions of service. The promotion to the higher posts is not a condition of service, as the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Moreover, promotion to the Executive cadre grade cannot be a subject of dispute in the Act. Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment of the Division Bench of Patna High Court, which is brought on record and annexed as Annexure5 to the writ petition. He has also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 11567-11573 of 1995, which arose out of the said Division Bench judgment of the High Court (Annexure6). He submitted that in view of the said decisions which is exactly on the same issue, the impugned Award of the learned Labour Court is apparently erroneous and liable to be quashed. 5. Respondent workman has opposed the writ petition. It has been stated inter alia that the Award of the learned Labour Court is based on a detailed discussion and consideration of the facts and materials on record. Learned Labour Court has dealt with the question of maintainability elaborately and has held that the petition was maintainable. Learned court below has recorded detail reason in support of his finding. The judgments of the Patna High Court and the Supreme Court were rendered on the facts of the other cases and the same have no application in the instant case. Learned court below has recorded detail reason in support of his finding. The judgments of the Patna High Court and the Supreme Court were rendered on the facts of the other cases and the same have no application in the instant case. Learned Labour Court has rightly held that giving promotion on the basis of seniority, is the usage and the rule in the Company. Supersession by junior to him is contrary to the service conditions and the same is breach of service conditions. Provisions of Sections 33 and 33A of the said Act are well attracted. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the petitioners have challenged the Award of the Labour Court mainly on the ground that similar prayer made by the concerned workmen almost on the same ground was turned down by the High Court and the Supreme Court. Whether the matter is similar in both the cases can only be decided after delving into and appreciating the facts and materials in both the cases, which is beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction. No other point has been convassed by the Management petitioner for assailing the impugned Award. The writ petition is, thus, liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record and I have also considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel. In the instant case, certain facts are admitted by both the parties. It has been admitted that the order of promotion which was made the basis of application under Section 33A was dated 01.03.1972. Reference Case is said to be pending and during pendency, the right is claimed to be protected under Section 33A of the Act, was of 1973 being Reference Case No. 39 of 1973. It has been admitted that the order of promotion which was made the basis of application under Section 33A was dated 01.03.1972. Reference Case is said to be pending and during pendency, the right is claimed to be protected under Section 33A of the Act, was of 1973 being Reference Case No. 39 of 1973. Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act reads as follows : S.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 workman 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. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), no employer shall, during the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, take any action against any protected workman concerned in such dispute- (a) by altering, to the prejudice of such protected workman, the conditions of service applicable to him immediately before the commencement of such proceedings; or (b) by discharging or punishing whether by dismissal or otherwise, such protected workman, save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, a "protected workman", in relation to an establishment, means a workman who, being [a member of the executive or other office bearer] of a registered trade union connected with the establishment, is recognised as such in accordance with rules made in this behalf. (4) In every establishment, the number of workmen to be recognised as protected workmen for the purposes of sub-section (3) shall be one per cent of the total number of workmen employed therein subject to a minimum number of five protected workmen and a maximum number of one hundred protected workmen and for the aforesaid purpose, the appropriate Government may make rules providing for the distribution of such protected workmen among various trade unions, if any connected with the establishment and the manner in which the workmen may be chosen and recognised as protected workmen. (5) Where an employer makes an application to a conciliation officer, Board, [an arbitrator, a] Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal under the proviso to sub-section (2) for approval of the action taken by him, the authority concerned shall, without delay, hear such application and pass, [within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such application], such order in relation thereto as it deems fit: [Provided that where any such authority considers it necessary or expedient so to do, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as it may think fit: Provided further that no proceedings before any such authority shall lapse merely on the ground that any period specified in this sub-section had expired without such proceedings being completed.] 8. In view of the said admitted position, even if it is assumed that there was change in condition of service by the said order of promotion dated 01.03.1972, there was no proceeding pending as the Reference Case was of 1973. In view of the said admitted fact, Section 33 cannot be said to be attracted in the instant case, in absence of ingredients of Section 33, an application under Section 33A is not maintainable. Section 33A of the Act reads as follows : 33A.Special provision for adjudication as to whether conditions of service, etc., changed during pendency of proceedings.-Where an employer contravenes the provisions of Section 33 during the pendency of proceedings [before a conciliation officer, Board, an arbitrator, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal], any employee aggrieved by such contravention, may make a complaint in writing, [in the prescribed manner,-- (a) to such conciliation officer or Board, and the conciliation officer or Board shall take such complaint into account in mediating in, and promoting the settlement of, such industrial dispute; and (b) to such arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal and on receipt of such complaint, the arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it, in accordance with the provisions of this Act and shall submit his or its award to the appropriate Government and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly.] 9. Further, it is also admitted that similar Award made in the cases of other workmen was set aside by a Division Bench of the then Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 140 of 1995(R) and other connected cases. In the said judgment, the Division Bench after thorough discussion and consideration of the facts and points in issue held that promotion to the higher posts had no nexus with the subject matter of the pending dispute in Reference Case No. 39 of 1973 and the alleged supersession of the workmen cannot be said to be an alteration of the service conditions to their prejudice in a matter connected with the pending dispute. The said judgment of the Division Bench of Patna High Court was challenged in the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1156711573 of 1995. The Supreme Court after detailed discussion and with addition of some more reasons dismissed the appeal. 10. The said judgment of the Division Bench of Patna High Court was challenged in the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1156711573 of 1995. The Supreme Court after detailed discussion and with addition of some more reasons dismissed the appeal. 10. The respondent workmen tried to distinguish the said decision and submitted that the Award in the instant case has been rendered on some different facts and circumstances and as such, the said decisions of the High Court and that of the Supreme Court do not cover the issue in the instant case. 11. On perusal of the impugned Award, I find that the learned Labour Court himself has held that the point taken by the concerned workmen of this case is identical and that the doctrine of stare decisis has application in full force in the present case. In this connection paragraph23 of the order of the learned Presiding Officer is worth quoting : “ The learned counsel for the complainant P.R. Rakshit argued that in identical cases filed by Sri C.P. Agarwal, Sri Kameshwar Singh, Sri Satya Narayan Sharma, Sri Ram Vijay Singh, Sri Pramod Kumar, Sri Ambika Prasad Singh, Sri Gangadhar Mishra, Sri Sheo Shankar Roy, Sri V.S. Prasad, Sri Upendra Narayan Jha and Sri Ram Briksha Prasad, this Labour Court has held that the complaints filed by them u/s 33A of the I.D. Act, 1947 are maintainable and directed the O.P. management to promote them to the higher posts with all the consequential benefits. The point pressed into service by Sri Rakshit is that the principles enunciated earlier has been followed in identical cases. I am in total agreement with the view taken by Sri Rakshit and held that the doctrine of state decisis applies with full force in the present case”. 12. I find that the case and the issues involved in the decisions in C.W.J.C. No. 140/95(R) and other connected cases and affirmed by the Supreme Court are not different and no different view can be taken in the instant case. 13. In view of the above discussion, the impugned Award of the learned court below cannot be upheld and is liable to be set aside. 14. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned Award dated 31.07.1996 passed in Misc. Case No. 5 of 1992 is quashed. 15. However, there is no order as to cost.