JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the Award dated 15.01.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro in Miscellaneous Case No. 1 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the complaint under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act has been answered in the affirmative. 3. An industrial dispute was raised by the concerned workmen through their Union and the same was referred for adjudication being Reference Case No. 6 of 1997 and the terms of reference are as follows: “Whether to freeze 20% Machine allowance of Basic and D.A. from 01.07.1991 to the appointed workman of EDP Section (Punch room), Computer Section, Input Output Section, Bursting Section of EDP Centre of Bokaro Steel Plant is proper? If not, what relief their workmen are entitled to?” 4. A complaint was made by the respondent nos. 2 to 11 under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act before the learned Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro. In the said complaint, it has been mentioned that the complainant have been working in the Electronic Data Processing Centre of the petitioner – Company and are governed by the service rules and are required to put in 6 ½ hours of work per day and 36 hours a week. Vide office order dated 27.05.1973, the Assistant Coordination Officer of the management conveyed the approval of the then Managing Director to grant Machine Allowance at the rate of 20% of Basic plus D.A. to the employees working in the Computer room/section and Punch room of EPD Centre, who would be required to work in shifts and directly associated with the Machines utilization in lieu of increasing their shift work to 8 hours a day and 48 hours a week. Pursuant to the office order dated 27.05.1973, the different hours of the concerned employees of the EPD Centre was increased subject to the payment of Machine Allowance at the rate of 20% of their Basic pay plus DA. Subsequently, vide office order dated 20.07.1978, the benefits of machine allowance were extended to the employees working in input/output centre as also to certain categories of employees of Sales Accounts Section (Invoice Group) of the Finance and Accounts Division of the Management by way of special allowance. Subsequently, vide office order dated 20.07.1978, the benefits of machine allowance were extended to the employees working in input/output centre as also to certain categories of employees of Sales Accounts Section (Invoice Group) of the Finance and Accounts Division of the Management by way of special allowance. The machine allowance was subsequently revised w.e.f. 01.09.1978, so far as the employees of EPD Centre are concerned, vide office order dated 16.02.1980. The workmen have submitted that vide office order dated 20.12.1991 a sudden decision was taken by the Management that the non-executive working in the EPD Centre as also the staff of Sales Accounts Section who are till then drawing 20% of Basic pay plus DA as machine allowance/special allowance would not be entitled to any increase in the said allowance and the same would stand frozen at the rate of 20% of Basic pay and DA payable as on 01.07.1991. The freezing of the machine allowance led to the Union raising a dispute and the same was referred for adjudication before the learned Labour Court on the terms enumerated therein and which led to institution of Reference Case No. 6 of 1997. The workmen concerned in their complaint after giving a brief background with respect to pendency of Reference Case No. 6 of 1997 has stated that during the pendency of the said reference in violation of the provisions of Section 33-A (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the workmen concerned were transferred by the Management to other departments. It has further been stated that consequent to the transfer, the machine allowance has been stopped and the concerned workman are still required to work in shift of 8 hours a day and 48 hours a week. It has been stated that since on account of the transfer and freezing of the machine allowance, service conditions of the concerned workman has been altered and therefore, in such circumstances, it has been prayed that the arbitrary action of the Management in transferring the concerned workmen be set aside. 5. The Management in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2002 had filed its show-cause in which it has been stated that the transfer was on account of the fact that it was for better and proper utilization of the services of the workmen concerned. 5. The Management in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2002 had filed its show-cause in which it has been stated that the transfer was on account of the fact that it was for better and proper utilization of the services of the workmen concerned. It has further been stated that in the transfer order dated 03.11.2001 since there was no mention about the admissibility/continuity of machine allowance, the matter was subsequently rectified and the temporary discontinuance of the machine allowance was purely on account of a communication gap. The management has also denied that the transfer of the concerned workmen from one department to another is not even remotely connected with the pendency of the Reference Case No. 6 of 1997 nor it is a change in the service conditions of the concerned workmen. 6. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro vide Award dated 15.01.2003 had come to a conclusion that the Management had changed the service conditions of the concerned workmen during the pendency of Reference Case No. 6 of 1997 and therefore, the transfer order is a nullity and the concerned workmen are entitled to be restored by repatriating them to EPD Centre as D. P. Supervisors. 7. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 15.01.2003 by stating that the learned Labour Court has failed to substantiate the finding that transfer of the concerned workmen to other departments would amount to a change in the service conditions of concerned workmen thus, inviting the complaint under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. It has further been stated that the machine allowance which was being paid to the concerned workmen prior to their transfer was resumed and therefore, it cannot be said to be in conflict with the terms of Reference as indicated in the Reference Case No. 6 of 1997. It has further been stated that the contentions of the concerned workmen regarding non-consideration of their seniority on transfer seems to have been misconstrued by the learned Labour Court that the seniority will be considered from the date of joining on the transferred post. Mr. It has further been stated that the contentions of the concerned workmen regarding non-consideration of their seniority on transfer seems to have been misconstrued by the learned Labour Court that the seniority will be considered from the date of joining on the transferred post. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel further submits that in the rejoinder which has been filed on behalf of the Management, it has been clearly stated that the past services in the EPD Section and also in other section would not be ignored or denied. 8. Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing for the respondents on the other hand has stated that the dispute which was referred for adjudication leading to Reference Case No. 6 of 1997 was with respect to the freezing of the machine allowance and since the same co-related with the transfer of some workmen by the Management during the pendency of the Reference proceedings, the application preferred under Section 33A of Industrial Disputes Act is maintainable. It has further been submitted that in fact on transfer, some of the incentives are not being paid to the concerned workmen though they have been paid to the other class of employees and the same apparently is a discrimination and therefore, the learned Labour Court was right in allowing the application under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act by directing the Management to re-transfer them as D.P. Supervisors in the EPD Sections. 9. On consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the various petitions as well as the impugned Award, the only question which falls for consideration is as to whether there has been a change in the service conditions on account of the transfer of the concerned workmen to different Sections of the Company during the pendency of Reference Case No. 6 of 1997, thereby inviting an order under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. It appears that the grievance of the concerned workmen seems to be three fold. The first is with respect to non-payment of the machine allowance on their transfer to other Sections of the Company and second, denying them seniority which has been counted from the date they had joined in the Section concerned. It appears that the grievance of the concerned workmen seems to be three fold. The first is with respect to non-payment of the machine allowance on their transfer to other Sections of the Company and second, denying them seniority which has been counted from the date they had joined in the Section concerned. The third grievance of the petitioner appears to be with respect to the non-payment of the special incentive as has been paid to the other employees of the Section. 10. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro has gone to the extent that the resumption of payment of machine allowance is an eye-wash and after the disposal of the Reference Case No. 6 of 1997, the said allowance will be stopped. The same is a presumptive finding of the learned Labour Court. In the show-cause submitted by the Management, it has been categorically stated that on account of a communication gap, the machine allowance was temporarily discontinued, but immediately on coming to know of the said fact, the Management had resumed payment of the machine allowance to the concerned workmen. It is not known as to what made the learned Presiding Officer arrive at a finding that the resumption of machine allowance was merely an eye-wash and it cannot be construed to be so, merely because the resumption was made on account of filing of the application under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said finding is merely based on surmises. At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to the terms of adjudication in Reference Case No. 6 of 1997. The said reference was only with respect to freezing of 20% machine allowance on Basic and DA from 01.07.1991 to the workmen of EPD Section (Punch room), Computer Section, Input/Output Section and Bursting Section of EPD Section of Bokaro Steel Plant. If at all the Management had stopped granting machine allowance to the concerned workmen after their transfer and had not resumed the same, conclusion could have been arrived at that such transfer would directly affect the service conditions of the concerned workmen. However, in view of the fact that the machine allowance was resumed and a presumption was made by the learned Presiding Officer, the same could not be said to be a change in the condition of the service during the pendency of the proceedings. 11. However, in view of the fact that the machine allowance was resumed and a presumption was made by the learned Presiding Officer, the same could not be said to be a change in the condition of the service during the pendency of the proceedings. 11. Section 9 A of the Industrial Disputes Act envisages notice of change and an employer who proposes to implement any change in the condition of service applicable to any workmen in respect to any matter specified in the 4th schedule, shall do so after giving the workmen, likely to be affected by such change, a notice in the prescribed manner. The conditions of service for change of which notice has to be given is enumerated in the 4th Schedule. To revert back to the reference which has already been made, the same is confined only with respect to freezing of the machine allowance at 20% w.e.f. 01.07.1991. In the 4th Schedule, the same would come under compensatory and other allowances. At the cost of repetition, it must be stated that the machine allowance was resumed and is being paid to the concerned workmen, and therefore, it cannot be said to be a change in the conditions of service, thereby inviting an application under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act for not following the provisions of Section 9 A of the said Act. So far as the question of seniority is concerned, it has been specifically stated by the Management that the seniority of the concerned workmen within the department to which they have been transferred will be counted from the date of joining in the department, but at the same time it does not mean that their past services in the EPD Section and or any other Section would be ignored or denied. As regards, the incentives and other allowances are concerned, no specific finding has been recorded by the learned Presiding Officer. 12. The other issue which has been considered by the learned Presiding Officer is with respect to absence of notice under Section 9(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act on account of change in the allowance and alteration of shift. The alteration of shift was never a subject-matter of Reference Case No. 6 of 1997 and in such situation therefore, Section 33-A will not come into play, since the said issue was never referred for adjudication. 13. The alteration of shift was never a subject-matter of Reference Case No. 6 of 1997 and in such situation therefore, Section 33-A will not come into play, since the said issue was never referred for adjudication. 13. Concluding thus it is held that there has not been any change in the service conditions of the concerned workmen and therefore, the application preferred under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act deserves to be rejected. 14. In view of the aforesaid, this writ application stands allowed and the impugned order dated 15.01.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro in Miscellaneous Case No. 1 of 2002 is hereby quashed and set aside. 15. This writ application stands allowed.