JUDGMENT : Since Common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. W.P.(C) No. 1002 of 2016 is filed by the Managing Director of Force India Management Services and Securities (hereinafter referred to as the 'security agency', unless otherwise specifically stated), a proprietary firm engaged in the supply of security personnel for Government and nongovernmental institutions. The Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'KSBC', for short) invited competitive tenders for deployment of security guards (unarmed) on contract basis for security duty at their FL-9 warehouses and head office and on being awarded the contract, the petitioner entered into Ext.P1 agreement. As per clause 9 of the agreement, the liability to pay the salary and other statutory dues of the security staff is on the security agency. Clause 22 provides that the period of Contract will be for three years with effect from 16.07.2012 with an annual escalation based on the maximum variable Dearness Allowance as per the Consumer Price Index. 3. Pursuant to the contract, the security agency recruited 97 employees and deployed them at the various sites of KSBC. While continuing with such arrangement for security duties, the General Administration Department, Government of Kerala issued Circular No.71307/12/GAD dated 01.10.2012 directing the public sector undertakings and Government companies to engage security personnel from Kerala State Ex-Service Development and Rehabilitation (KEXCON). Based on the said circular, the KSBC took steps to terminate the contract arrangement with the petitioner. The petitioner filed W.P. (C) No.1437 of 2013 before this Court and on the strength of interim order dated 18.01.2013, the contract was continued. Later, the said writ petition was finally closed by judgment dated 08.09.2015 observing that the period of contract was already over by then. This writ petition is filed by the security agency contending that even after expiry of the period of contract, they are continuing; but the KSBC is not disbursing the amounts due to them in terms of clause 22 of the contract and therefore, prays for direction to KSBC to release the amounts due as annual escalation as provided under clause 22. 4.The KSBC has filed a counter affidavit resisting the averments in the writ petition contending that it had been engaging security guards from different security agencies since its inception in 1984 following open tender process and Ext.P1 contract provides clause for termination by giving two months notice and the contract with the petitioner agency was terminated on 18.01.2013 and annual escalation as per clause 22 of the contract is not available on expiry of the contract and while continuing on the strength of interim order of the Court. 5. W.P.(C) No.982 of 2016 is filed by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation Staff Organisation (INTUC), a trade union of workmen of the KSBC, registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 contending that the KSBC had engaged 93 workmen as security guards in their 22 warehouses and head office from the year 1984 uninterruptedly, but they are not paid wages and benefits as payable to regular employees and they are treated as 'contract labours' based on sham contracts to deny them their legitimate benefits. The petitioner union, by Ext.P1 charter of demands, raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Commissioner under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('I.D. Act', for short) claiming regularisation of service of 93 workmen employed in KSBC as security guards. The Additional Labour Commissioner (IR) issued Ext.P4 notice to KSBC and the petitioner union informing that he has decided to hold a conciliation meeting on 02.02.2016 on the subject raised in the charter of demands and requesting them to attend the meeting. 6. It is contended that, during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, based on circular No.71307/12/GAD dated 01.10.2012 issued by the Government, the KSBC took steps to terminate the service of the existing security guards to engage security personnel from KEXCON. Though the petitioner had earlier challenged the circular before this Court in W.P.(C) No.8023 of 2015, the same was dismissed by this Court by Ext.P7 judgment stating that M/s Force India Management Services and Securities, the contractor is not before the Court and the period of contract has expired on 16.07.2015. According to the petitioner, the security guards whom it represents were continued to be employed by KSBC even after Ext. According to the petitioner, the security guards whom it represents were continued to be employed by KSBC even after Ext. P7 judgment and any steps to terminate their service during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P4 notice are hit by the bar and prohibition contained in Section 33 (1) of the I.D. Act. Accordingly, the prayer in the writ petition is for direction to KSBC to forbear from terminating the services of the 93 workmen employed under them as Security Guards, until the culmination of the industrial dispute over regularization of their services, raised as per Ext. P1 charter of demands. This Court, by order dated 12.01.2016, directed to maintain status quo for a period of one month. The said order, which was extended from time to time, was extended until further orders on 07.07.2016. 7. A counter affidavit is filed by the KSBC stating that the 93 persons referred to in the writ petition are not their regular employees and were deployed as security guards by the security agency as per agreement dated 16.07.2012 and the contract period was only for 3 years and it is the duty of the security agency to provide alternative employment for its employees or otherwise to take care of their service matters. It is stated that most of the security guards engaged by the security agency are more than 60 years old and are retired employees getting pension from elsewhere. The KSBC contends that, in the light of Ext. P7 judgment, the writ petition is not maintainable. It is also contended that no decision is taken by the conciliation officer pursuant to Ext.P4 in the light of interim order dated 12.01.2016. 8. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner denying the averments in the counter affidavit and producing Ext.P8 communication of the Labour Commissioner dated 08.02.2016 stating that the conciliation meeting convened pursuant to Ext. P4 notice has been adjourned sine die due to the stay order in the writ petition. 9. 8. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner denying the averments in the counter affidavit and producing Ext.P8 communication of the Labour Commissioner dated 08.02.2016 stating that the conciliation meeting convened pursuant to Ext. P4 notice has been adjourned sine die due to the stay order in the writ petition. 9. W.P.(C) No. 3038 of 2018 is also filed by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation Staff Organisation (INTUC), wherein it is contended that M/s Force India Management Services and Securities which was awarded the contract for deployment of security guards by KSBC had engaged the existing security guards from 16.07.2012 and they are continuing to work under the said security agency in FL-9 warehouses, but are not paid wages at par with the security guards deployed in FL-1 shops and in terms of Ext.P7 notification fixing minimum wages to the employees in the security services in the State. Though the petitioner union made representation to the KSBC for wages at par with the security guards deployed in FL-1 shops, the same was not considered and later, this Court, by Ext. P13 judgment, directed the KSBC to consider their representation and to pass orders thereon. The KSBC, by Ext. P14, rejected the request of the petitioner union stating that the wages of security guards were fixed in terms of the agreement with the security agency and the said agreement had expired on 16.07.2015 and the rates can be revised only by a re-tender and that in view of the order of status quo passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 982 of 2016, the demand of the petitioner cannot be considered. The petitioner has challenged Ext.P14 order in this writ petition and sought for direction to the KSBC to pay minimum wages to the security guards working in FL9 warehouses and the head office of the KSBC, irrespective of any contractual terms with the security agency and notwithstanding the pendency of W.P. (C) No.982/2016. 10. A counter affidavit is filed by the KSBC stating that the security guards are appointed in FL-1 retail shops under different agencies under different contracts and the security guards in FL-9 warehouses cannot be paid wages at par with the security guards deployed in FL-1 shops. 10. A counter affidavit is filed by the KSBC stating that the security guards are appointed in FL-1 retail shops under different agencies under different contracts and the security guards in FL-9 warehouses cannot be paid wages at par with the security guards deployed in FL-1 shops. It is stated that the contract by which the security guards were deployed in FL-9 warehouses expired on 16.07.2015 and higher wages from the agreed wages can be paid only if there is variation in terms and conditions of contract. It is stated that the security guards engaged by the 6th respondent security agency are continuing purely on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court and they are not eligible for the wages at par with security guards in FL-1 shops. An additional counter affidavit is also filed by KSBC stating that Ext. P7 fixing minimum wages to the employees in the security services will have application only from the date of its notification in the gazette and since the contract with the security agency expired on 16.07.2015, the rates fixed in Ext.P7 will not apply. 11. W.P.(C) No. 4004 of 2019 is filed by Force India Management Services and Securities, the security agency, contending that since the KSBC has not granted escalation rate as per clause 22 of the contract, the agency is unable to pay even minimum wages to the security guards deployed by them in the warehouses and the head office of the KSBC. Accordingly, they have prayed for a direction to the KSBC to give annual escalation as envisaged under clause 22 of the contract and alternatively for a direction to KSBC for consideration of their representations in this regard. 12. Heard Smt. A.K. Preetha, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) Nos. 1002 of 2016 and 4004 of 2019 and Sri. P.S. Gireesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 982 of 2016, Sri.C.S. Ajith Prakash, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 3038 of 2018, Sri. T. Naveen, the learned standing counsel for KSBC and Sri. K.M. Faizal, the learned Government Pleader for the State. 13. From the rival pleadings of the parties, it is noticed that the following facts are not in dispute:- (i). T. Naveen, the learned standing counsel for KSBC and Sri. K.M. Faizal, the learned Government Pleader for the State. 13. From the rival pleadings of the parties, it is noticed that the following facts are not in dispute:- (i). The KSBC had been engaging security guards from different security agencies for security duties in its warehouses and head office since its inception in 1984 following open tender process. (ii). Force India Management Services and Securities was awarded contract by KSBC for deployment of security guards (unarmed) for security duty at their FL9 warehouses and Head office for a period of three years with effect from 16.07.2012. (iii). The security agency engaged existing security guards for security duties on award of contract. (iv).There is no formal contract with regard to deployment of security guards for security duty in FL9 warehouses and Head office of KSBC after 15.07.2015. (v). The security agency as well the security guards engaged by them are continuing on the strength of the order of status quo passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 982 of 2016. (vi). As per clause 9 of the contract, the liability to pay the salary and other statutory dues of the security guards is on the security agency. (vii).Clause 22 of the contract contains provision for annual escalation. (viii).Pursuant to the charter of demands submitted by the Union demanding regularisation of service of the security guards, the conciliation officer has issued notice to the parties informing that he has decided to hold a conciliation meeting on 02.02.2016 on the subject raised in the charter of demands and requesting them to attend the meeting. (ix). The conciliation meeting slated on 02.02.2016 was adjourned to 25.02.2016 and later adjourned sine die due to order of status quo passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 982 of 2016. (x). The security guards engaged at FL-9 warehouses and Head office of KSBC are not paid minimum wages payable to employees in security service as per notification dated 09.05.2017 or at par with the security guards in FL-1 shops and they are paid wages at the rate fixed in the contract dated 16.07.2012. (xi). (x). The security guards engaged at FL-9 warehouses and Head office of KSBC are not paid minimum wages payable to employees in security service as per notification dated 09.05.2017 or at par with the security guards in FL-1 shops and they are paid wages at the rate fixed in the contract dated 16.07.2012. (xi). The request of the Union for wages for security guards deployed in FL-9 warehouses and the head office of KSBC at par with the security guards deployed in FL-1 shops, relegated to the Managing Director, KSBC by this Court was rejected on the ground that the rates can be revised only by a re-tender and citing the order of status quo passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 982 of 2016. 14. The first question which requires consideration is whether a conciliation proceedings is pending before the conciliation officer so as to attract Section 33 (1) of the I.D. Act. 15. According to Sri. Naveen, as per Section 20 of the I.D. Act, the conciliation proceedings shall be deemed to have commenced on the date of the order referring the dispute to a Board and in the case on hand the Labour Commissioner has not even placed the matter before the Government for referring the alleged dispute to the Board and therefore, it cannot be contended that the conciliation proceedings have commenced. To consider this issue, it will be apposite to refer to Section 20 of the I.D. Act which reads as follows: “20. Commencement and conclusion of proceedings.- (1) A conciliation proceeding shall be deemed to have commenced on the date on which a notice of strike or lock-out under Section 22 is received by the conciliation officer or on the date of the order referring the dispute to a Board, as the case may be. (2) A conciliation proceeding shall be deemed to have concluded- (a) where a settlement is arrived at, when a memorandum of the settlement is signed by the parties to the dispute; (b) where no settlement is arrived at, when the report of the conciliation officer is received by the appropriate Government or when the report of the Board is published under Section 17, as the case may be; or (c) when a reference is made to a Court, [Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] under Section 10 during the pendency of conciliation proceedings. Proceedings [before an arbitrator under Section 10-A or before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] shall be deemed to have commenced on the date of the [reference of the dispute for arbitration or adjudication, as the case may be,] and such proceedings shall be deemed to have concluded [on the date on which the award becomes enforceable under Section 17-A.] (emphasis supplied) Section 12 of the I.D. Act deals with duties of conciliation officers and reads as follows:- “12. Duties of conciliation officers:- (1) Where any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, the conciliation officer may, or where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under Section 22 has been given, shall, hold conciliation proceedings in the prescribed manner. (2) The Conciliation Officer shall, for the purpose of bringing about a settlement of the dispute, without delay, investigate the dispute and all matters affecting the merits and the right settlement thereof and may do all such things as he thinks fit for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute. (3) If a settlement of the dispute or of any of the matters in dispute is arrived at in the course of the conciliation proceedings the conciliation officer shall send a report thereof to the appropriate Government [or an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government] together with a memorandum of the settlement signed by the parties to the dispute. (4) If no such settlement is arrived at, the conciliation officer shall, as soon as practicable after the close of the investigation, send to the appropriate Government a full report setting forth the steps taken by him for ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to the dispute and for bringing about settlement thereof, together with a full statement of such facts and circumstances, and the reasons on account of which, in his opinion, a settlement could not be arrived at. (5) If, on a consideration of the report referred to in sub-section (4), the appropriate Government is satisfied that there is a case for reference to a Board, [Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal],it may make such reference. Where the appropriate Government does not make such a reference it shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reasons therefor. (5) If, on a consideration of the report referred to in sub-section (4), the appropriate Government is satisfied that there is a case for reference to a Board, [Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal],it may make such reference. Where the appropriate Government does not make such a reference it shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reasons therefor. (6) A report under this section shall be submitted within fourteen days of the commencement of the conciliation proceedings or within such shorter period as may be fixed by the appropriate Government: [Provided that, [subject to the approval of the conciliation officer] the time for the submission of the report may be extended by such period as may be agreed upon in writing by all the parties to the dispute]. (emphasis supplied) Section 22 of the I.D. Act deals with prohibition of strikes and lockouts in public utility services. KSBC is not a Public Utility Service as defined under Section 2(n) of the Act. Rule 10 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.D. Rules', for short) deals with conciliation proceedings in non-public utility service and reads as follows: “10. Conciliation proceedings in non-public utility service.—Where the Conciliation Officer receives any information about an existing or apprehended industrial dispute which does not relate to public utility service and he considers it necessary to intervene in the dispute, he shall give formal intimation in writing to the parties concerned declaring his intention to commence conciliation proceedings with effect from such date as may be specified therein.” Where any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended in any public utility service, the intervention of the conciliation officer is mandatory as the word 'shall' in Section 12 (1) commands. He shall then hold conciliation proceedings in the manner prescribed by the Rules. In case of non public utility services, where the conciliation officer receives information about an existing or apprehended industrial dispute, there is no imperative command in Section 12 (1) for the Conciliation officer to hold conciliation proceedings. He has the discretion to hold conciliation proceedings. Once he considers it necessary to intervene, he has to give formal intimation in writing to the parties concerned declaring his intention to commence conciliation proceedings with effect from such date as may be specified therein. 16. He has the discretion to hold conciliation proceedings. Once he considers it necessary to intervene, he has to give formal intimation in writing to the parties concerned declaring his intention to commence conciliation proceedings with effect from such date as may be specified therein. 16. When the union raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Commissioner demanding regularisation of service of security guards in KSBC, he, in his discretion, considered it necessary to intervene and has issued Ext. P4 communication in W.P.(C) No. 982 of 2016 informing the KSBC and the Union declaring his intention to commence conciliation proceedings on the date slated therein viz; 02.02.2016 and asking them to attend the same. Thus, the conciliation proceedings before the conciliation officer has commenced w.e.f 02.02.2016 and the embargo under Section 33 (1) of the I.D. Act with regard to the conditions of service applies with effect from that date. Section 33 (1) of the I.D. Act is extracted below: “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.” Section 33(1) provides that, during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings 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, the employer is prohibited from altering the conditions of service of the workmen; or dismissing, discharging or punishing the workmen in respect of any matter or misconduct connected with the dispute, save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending. The embargo under Section 33 (1) is with regard to change of conditions of service to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in the dispute. 17. The embargo under Section 33 (1) is with regard to change of conditions of service to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in the dispute. 17. The next question to be considered is whether the rejection of request of the Union for wages for the security guards deployed in FL-9 warehouses and the head office of KSBC at par with the security guards deployed in FL-1 shops is sustainable or not. 18. The request of the Union for wages to security guards deployed in FL-9 warehouses and the head office of KSBC at par with the security guards deployed in FL-1 shops, relegated to KSBC by this Court was rejected stating that the contract has expired and since the order of status quo passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 982 of 2016 is in force, the request cannot be considered. When this Court by Ext. P13 judgment in W.P. (C) No. 3038 of 2018 directed the KSBC to consider the request of the Union for wages to security guards deployed in FL-9 warehouses and the head office of KSBC at par with the security guards deployed in FL-1 shops, the order of status quo passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 982 of 2016 was already in force and was within the knowledge of the Court and the KSBC cannot refuse to consider the request of the Union for the said reason. The KSBC failed to consider the representation of the Union as per the direction in Ext. P13 judgment. Ext. P14 in W.P. (C) No. 3038 of 2018 cannot be sustained in law. 19. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: (1). It is declared that a conciliation proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is pending before the conciliation officer pursuant to Ext. P4 in W.P (C) No. 982 of 2016 and the same has commenced w.e.f the date specified therein. (2). The Additional Labour Commissioner (IR), Office of the Labour Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram shall conclude the conciliation proceedings pursuant to Ext. P4 in W.P (C) No. 982 of 2016 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and the order of status quo passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 982 of 2016 will continue during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings. (3). Ext. P4 in W.P (C) No. 982 of 2016 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and the order of status quo passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 982 of 2016 will continue during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings. (3). Ext. P14 in W.P. (C) No. 3038 of 2018 is set aside and the Managing Director, KSBC is directed to pass fresh orders on Ext. P11 representation therein dated 01.08.2017 after hearing the petitioner Union, Force India Management Services and Securities and any other persons likely to be affected by the orders to be passed by the KSBC. The KSBC shall also consider the applicability of Ext.P7 notification to the security guards deployed in FL-9 warehouses and the head office of KSBC. Along with the same, the Managing Director, KSBC shall take up for consideration Exts. P3 to P6 representations of the security agency in W.P. (C) No. 4004 of 2019 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Orders as above shall be passed and communicated to the parties by KSBC within a period of two months from today. There will be no order as to costs.