JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioner had moved an application under Section 6-F of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Haldwani, Nainital alleging that the condition of the workman has been changed in violation of Section 6-F of the Act, inasmuch as he is not being allowed to enter factory premises. This application of the petitioner has been rejected by the Labour Court vide order dated 01.12.2014. Hence, the present petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is that during the conciliation proceedings he was transferred from Century Pulp and Paper Mills Limited, Lalkaun, District Nainital to Bharuch, Gujarat Unit on 19.08.2013. According to the petitioner, under the model standing order applicable in the factory such a transfer from one place to another can only be made with the consent of the workman, whereas in the present case, there is no such consent. Hence, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court. 3. During the conciliation proceedings vide order 19.08.2013 the petitioner was even restricted by the employer to enter the factory premises. The workman, hence, takes recourse of Section 6-E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and says that since the condition of his services have been changed during conciliation proceedings, a notice ought to have been taken on this aspect as well by the Labour Court. Section 6-E and 6-F of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act are reproduced as under:- “Section6-E. Conditions of service, etc. to remain unchanged in certain circumstances during the pendency of proceedings.- (1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a Conciliation Officer or a Board or of any proceeding before a Labour Court or 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- (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 proceeding, 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 an officer 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 recognized as protected workmen for the purposes of sub-section (3) shall not exceed 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 State 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 they may be chosen and recognized as protected workmen. (5) Where an employer makes an application to a Board, Labour Court or 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, as expeditiously as possible, such order in relation thereto as it deems fit. Section 6-F. Special provision for adjudication as to whether the conditions of service, etc. changed during the pendency of proceedings.- Where an employer contravenes the provisions of Section 6-E during the pendency of proceedings before a Labour Court or Tribunal, any workmen aggrieved by such contravention may make a complaint in writing in the prescribed manner, to the Labour Court or Tribunal as the case may be, and on receipt of such complaint that Labour Court or 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 this Act and shall submit its award to the State Government and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly.” 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the employer would argue that Section 6-E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act clearly says that the changed circumstances have been enumerated in sub-clause (a), (b) of Clause 1 and Section 6-F of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. He further says that these circumstances must happen during proceedings before the Labour Court or Tribunal and not during the conciliation proceedings. The alleged change of circumstances have occurred not during the conciliation but during the proceedings before the Labour Court. Hence Section 6-F of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act is presently not attracted. Hence to that extent the contention of the petitioner is not accepted. 5. However, considering the fact that the matter is pending before the Labour Court for last two years, the writ petition stands disposed with a direction to the Labour Court to expedite the matter without granting any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties and decide the matter on the basis of day-to-day hearing but preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 6. Let certified copy of this order be issued by 27.09.2016 on payment of usual charges.