Section 33A relief fails without a Section 33 breach; lock-out and wage disputes fell outside the provision.

A fact-dependent objection to a tribunal's jurisdiction, raised for the first time in writ proceedings after participation on merits, was held unavailable where the party had not objected at the earliest stage. Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act can succeed only on proof of a contravention of Section 33 during the pendency of proceedings. Non-payment of wages and bonus was treated as neither alteration of service conditions nor punishment under Section 33, while refusal of work amounting to lock-out fell within the separate scheme of Sections 23, 24 and 31(1). The award under Section 33A was therefore without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioner could challenge the Tribunal's jurisdiction in a writ proceeding after participating in the Section 33A proceeding without raising the objection earlier; (ii) whether the acts complained of, namely non-payment of wages and bonus and refusal of work amounting to lock-out, constituted a contravention of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 so as to sustain an award under Section 33A.

Issue (i): whether the petitioner could challenge the Tribunal's jurisdiction in a writ proceeding after participating in the Section 33A proceeding without raising the objection earlier.

Analysis: The objection that the petitioner was not a party to the original reference and had received no notice was treated as a controversial question of fact. The petitioner had contested the Section 33A proceeding before the Tribunal without raising that objection at the earliest opportunity. A party who submits to the tribunal's jurisdiction and proceeds on merits cannot ordinarily be permitted to impeach jurisdiction later on a fact-dependent ground in collateral writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge was not available to the petitioner in the writ proceeding.

Issue (ii): whether the acts complained of, namely non-payment of wages and bonus and refusal of work amounting to lock-out, constituted a contravention of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 so as to sustain an award under Section 33A.

Analysis: Section 33A presupposes a contravention of Section 33 during the pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal. Non-payment of wages and bonus was held not to be an alteration of service conditions and not punishment within Section 33. The refusal of work, though amounting to a lock-out, was held to fall within the separate scheme of Sections 23, 24 and 31(1), and not within Section 33. On the Tribunal's own findings there was therefore no breach of Section 33, and the foundation for invoking Section 33A failed. An order of certiorari could issue because the award disclosed a patent error of law on its face.

Conclusion: The award under Section 33A was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ succeeded, the impugned award was set aside, and the petitioner was awarded costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 33A cannot sustain an award unless there is a proved contravention of Section 33, and a lock-out or non-payment of wages and bonus does not, by itself, amount to such contravention; a fact-dependent jurisdictional objection not raised before the tribunal in time cannot later defeat a writ challenge based on the tribunal's patent error.

---