JUDGMENT Biplab Kumar Sharma, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner i.e. Buildworth Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under Companies Act, seeks to challenge the order dated 7.6.2012 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guwahati, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to frame a preliminary issue on the points of maintainability of the petition filed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The basic facts required to be stated for adjudication of the instant writ petition are as follows. A dispute having arisen between the management of Buildworth Pvt. Ltd., and their workmen, represented by Buildworth Shramik Union, the Govt. of Assam in the Labour Department made a reference to the Learned Labour Court, Assam at Guwahati to adjudicate upon the following issues: 1. Overtime wages against works done in 2004 and 2005-06. 2. Annual normal increment due on April 1, 2005 and April 1, 2006. 3. VDA since 2004-2005 and onwards. 4. Statutory bonus for the year 2005-06 and onwards. 5. Demand on pay revision w.e.f. April 1, 2006 and April 1, 2009. 6. Gratuity, GPF etc. to employees who left services. 7. Non-deposition of collected contribution-premium towards CPF, ESIS, L/C etc. And later the following issues are also incorporated in the charter of their demands for disputes by the union. These are- 8. Promotion/upgradation of services of the workers in the company. 9. Alleged illegal termination of service of Shri S.N. Singh by the management under the guise of accepting his disputed resignation later. 10. Alleged non-payment of monthly' salary of July, 2010 to the workers which was to be released on or before 7th August, 2010. 11. Alleged breaches of law by management due to lock-out declared by them in their factory establishment w.e.f. 8.00 am of August 5, 2010. 2. The reference has been registered and numbered as Reference Case No. 6/2010. During the pendency of the said reference, the learned Labour Court issued notice dated March 10, 2011 to the petitioner management to file its objection against the Misc. Application filed by the Labour Union under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For a ready reference, the Misc. During the pendency of the said reference, the learned Labour Court issued notice dated March 10, 2011 to the petitioner management to file its objection against the Misc. Application filed by the Labour Union under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For a ready reference, the Misc. Application filed by the employees' union is reproduced below: The complainant begs to state that the Management Buildworth Pvt. Ltd. has been guilty of a contravention of the provision of Section 33.1(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as below: 1. That the Ref. Case No. 06/2010 is running before the Court of your Honour. The case was registered in accordance with the Governor Notification No. GLR. 147/2003/201 dtd. October 29, 2010. 2. That Hon'ble Court of your Honour vide Memo No. LCG. 476-77 dated November 3, 2010 was pleased to fixed for filing the Written Statements of the Parties first on December 1, 2010. While the Written Statement of the Workmen side is already filed, the same from the Management sides is yet to be submitted even after passing the following dates: December 18, 2010, December 30, 2010, January 24, 2011, February 15, 2011 and February 22, 2011. 3. That there are 11 (eleven) issues in the Schedule of the Ref. Case No. 06/2010. The issue in Serial No. 11 is as under: Alleged breaches of law by the Management due to lock-out declared by them in their factory establishment w.e.f. 8.00 am of August 5, 2010. 4. That the lock-out in factory establishment of Buildworth Pvt. Ltd. was declared vide their Lock-out Notice dated August 5, 2010 and till date, the said notice is not withdrawn by the Management. As a result, the Workmen of Buildworth Pvt. Ltd. have been in out of gainful employment due to illegal and forceful lock-out in factory establishment of Buildworth Pvt. Ltd. 5. That in December, after receiving the Notice issued in Ref. Case No. 06/2010 from the Court of your honour, the Management has delivered of its product in two different consignment from their factory (MUD TANK SYSTEMS, ordered by Oil India Ltd., Duliajan). The Mud Tank Systems were in the factory of Buildworth Pvt. Ltd. in a stage of incomplete at the time of declaration of Lock-out. The Management had engaged hired workers to complete the Mud Tank Systems. The Mud Tank Systems were in the factory of Buildworth Pvt. Ltd. in a stage of incomplete at the time of declaration of Lock-out. The Management had engaged hired workers to complete the Mud Tank Systems. Now the Management of Buildworth Pvt. Ltd. has again engaged 25-30 hired workers to complete the C.F.T. Works ordered by Digboi Refinery in their factory. 6. That in such fact and situation, showing willingness of the workers to attend their works in the factory of Buildworth Pvt. Ltd., a Demand Notice for lifting the Lockout Notice Dated August 5, 2010 was again issued and mailed under Speed Post on February 1, 2011 to the Management, but till date, no response is found from the Management. 7. That the Management has not lift their Lockout Notice dated August 5, 2010 and without lifting their Lock-out Notice dated August 5, 2010 or obtaining expressed permission from honourable Court of Your honour, the Management has started works in their factory establishment and engaged hired workers to complete works order to the prejudice of workers. The Management, has, thus, contravened the provision of Section 33 (1)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is therefore prayed, Hon'ble Court may be pleased to decide the complaint set out above and pass such order or orders thereon as it may deem fit and proper. 3. Along with the said Misc. Application, the employees' Union also enclosed copy of the Demand Notice dated January 31, 2011, by which the employees' union had demanded withdrawal of Lock-out notice dated August 5, 2010. Another demand made was as to why contempt proceeding as per the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 should not be initiated against the Management for altering the service conditions of the workers, during the pendency of the reference. 4. Responding to the said Misc. Application, the petitioner-Management submitted its objection stating that the allegation made of violation of Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, is not sustainable on two counts, namely, the application having been filed by one Shri S.N. Singh, who had already tendered his resignation from service, the same was not maintainable. The second ground on which the objection was filed is that there was no change/alteration of conditions of service of the employees. The second ground on which the objection was filed is that there was no change/alteration of conditions of service of the employees. Responding to the said objection by which a prayer was also made for framing the preliminary issue in respect of maintainability of the Misc. Application filed under Section 33-A of Industrial Disputes Act, the employees' union preferred another objection dealing with the two grounds on which the Management had sought for framing of a preliminary issue. In the said objection, the employees' union inter alia stated that the application under Section 33 was not filed by said Shri S.N. Singh but the same was filed by the employees' union, represented by Shri Singh in his capacity as General Secretary of the employees' union. As regards the change of conditions of service, the employees' union referred to the issues framed in the reference, one of which is alleged breaches of law by the Management due to lock-out declared by them in their factory establishment w.e.f. 8.00 am of August 5, 2010. 5. After the aforesaid counter objection filed by the employees union, it was the turn of the Management to file another objection reiterating the earlier grounds. In the said objection, the petitioner-management also enclosed the copies of the orders passed by this Court on November 19, 2010 and December 6, 2010 in WP(C) No. 6070/2010 and WP(C) No. 6465/2010. The said two writ petitions were filed by the petitioner-management praying for a direction to the authorities for taking appropriate action in terms of the particular Police case registered by Dispur Police Station and also to provide adequate security to the petitioner-management for moving out Mud Tank Systems loaded on 5 (five) Nos. of Heavy Transport Carrier (Trolley trucks). In both the writ petitions, this Court allowed the petitioner-management to move out the trolley trucks from the factory premises. However, it was made clear that the police would verify whether the articles to be removed are concerned with the orders placed with the management by the particular authority. 6. of Heavy Transport Carrier (Trolley trucks). In both the writ petitions, this Court allowed the petitioner-management to move out the trolley trucks from the factory premises. However, it was made clear that the police would verify whether the articles to be removed are concerned with the orders placed with the management by the particular authority. 6. Placing reliance on the aforesaid two orders of this Court, it is the case of the petitioner-management that when the particular articles have been removed in trolley trucks with the permission of this court, it cannot be said that the activities of the management have led to violation of any of the conditions of service of the workmen, who are no-longer in active engagement due to the lockout already declared by the management. 7. From the above, what is seen is that the management was permitted to remove, certain articles. By no stretch of imagination, such permission granted by this Court can extend to activities leading to change of conditions of service during the pendency of the aforesaid reference. 8. Dealing with the prayer of the petitioner-management to frame a preliminary issue, learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order dated June 7, 2012 declining to do so as it felt the same not necessary. It has been observed in the impugned order that framing of a preliminary issue on the point of maintainability of the petition filed by the employees' union is not necessary for adjudication of the dispute and real controversy between the parties, which may also delay the proceeding. 9. As recorded in the impugned order and could be gathered from the application filed by the employees' union, it is their specific case that the management had engaged hired workers to complete the Mud Tank Systems. It has also been alleged that the management had again hired 25-30 workers to complete the CFT works ordered by the Digboi Refinery. It was on such counts, the employees' union had alleged contravention of provisions of Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 10. Mr. S.S. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on two decisions of the Apex Court in Blue Star Employees' Union v. Ex. Off. It was on such counts, the employees' union had alleged contravention of provisions of Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 10. Mr. S.S. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on two decisions of the Apex Court in Blue Star Employees' Union v. Ex. Off. Principal Secretary to Government and Another AIR 2000 SC 3110 : (2000) 8 SCC 94 : 2000 II LLJ 1398 (SC) and Syndicate Bank Ltd. v. K. Ramanath V. Bhat AIR 1968 SC 231 : 1967 II LLJ 745 (SC) submits that the management having raised the issue relating to non-contravention of any service conditions of the employees, the learned Labour Court was obliged to decide the issue in the of a preliminary issue to find out as to whether there was any contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act. 11. In Syndicate Bank Ltd. v. K. Ramanath V. Bhat (supra), the plea taken by the appellant was that there was no industrial dispute pending at the time of the order of dismissal. Dealing with the said contention, the Apex Court observed that if the said contention was to be accepted, then there was no question of contravention of Section 33 of the Act and consequently, there could not have been any occasion for entertaining any complaint under Section 33-A of the Act. 12. In Blue Star Employees' Union v. Ex. Off. Principal Secretary to Government and Another (supra), the Apex Court referred to the provisions of Section 33 and 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, has held that the contravention of provision of Section 33 of the Act being the foundation towards exercising the power under Section 33 of the Act, the first question to be answered is as to whether there was any contravention of Section 33 of the Act. 13. In the instant case, we have noticed the issues under the reference now pending before the learned Labour Court. One of the issues (Issue No. 11) is the alleged breach of law by management due to lock-out declared by them in their factory establishment w.e.f. 8.00 a.m. of August 5, 2010. As to what is complaint made by the employees' union has also been noted above. One of the issues (Issue No. 11) is the alleged breach of law by management due to lock-out declared by them in their factory establishment w.e.f. 8.00 a.m. of August 5, 2010. As to what is complaint made by the employees' union has also been noted above. It is the specific case of the employees' union that there has been contravention of Section 33 of the Act requiring intervention under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, it cannot be said that the plea of the workers' union is not based on any indication and/or pleadings in respect of violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, based on which they have raised the complaint under Section 33 of the Act. 14. Above apart, the learned Labour Court is within its competence and jurisdiction to frame or not to frame a preliminary issue on the question of maintainability of the complaint lodged by the employees' union. The learned Labour Court has duly taken note of the facts stated in the complaint that the management has engaged hired workers to complete the Mud Tank Systems and that it had again hired 25-30 workers to complete the CFT works ordered by the Digboi Refinery in their factory and thus the management has contravened the provision of Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 15. The formation of opinion of the learned Labour Court not to frame any preliminary issue on the points of maintainability of the case, cannot be said to be faulted with any legal premises. As has been held by the learned Labour Court that framing of a preliminary issue and adjudicating the same, may likely to delay the proceeding. Instead the learned Labour Court has decided to proceed with the adjudication of the real controversy between the parties. Such an approach cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated June 7, 2012 passed by the Learned Labour Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed