JUDGMENT LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, J. 1. The petitioner in all these four cases is Rohtas Industries Limited which has challenged the common award of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna, dated 26th March, 1975 given in Misc. Cases No. 79 of 1970, 72 of 1970, 35 of 1970 and 73 of 1970, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 12 to C.W.J.C. 1589 of 1978 arising out of Misc. Case No. 79 of 1970 and Annexure 3 in other three cases. The records of writ case 1589 of 1978 have been referred to by the learned counsel for the parties in course of their arguments as in the leading case. Since common questions have arisen in the four cases, they have been dealt with together by the Industrial Tribunal and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. According to the respondent no. 1 in each of these cases (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) who are workmen under the petitioner, they were working as operators in the Research Laboratory of the petitioner and the nature of their work was technical and their Union raised a dispute demanding higher pay scale. The State Government made a reference under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which was registered as Reference No. 60 of 1969 and during its pendency the Management transferred the workmen as clerks in non–technical posts. They filed applications before the Industrial Tribunal under section 33A of the Act, which were registered as Misc. Cases No. 79, 72, 35 and 73 of 1970 respectively alleging contravention of the provisions of section 33 of the Act, and praying for cancellation of their transfer orders. They alleged that they had passed the matriculation examination with science as one of their subjects and were appointed Trade Apprentice and later became operators and were given the scale of Rs. 55 to 93. They were entrusted with the work of Quality Control Assistant in the Research Laboratory and since the pay scale of these Assistants was Rs. 115-255, the Labour Union demanded on behalf of these workmen proper–gradation and higher wages. While Reference Case No. 60 of 1969, was pending the Management, according to the respondent's case, malafide, transferred them to non–technical jobs with the object to defeat their claim. 3. The petitioner challenged the maintainability of the applications and the claim of the respondents. 115-255, the Labour Union demanded on behalf of these workmen proper–gradation and higher wages. While Reference Case No. 60 of 1969, was pending the Management, according to the respondent's case, malafide, transferred them to non–technical jobs with the object to defeat their claim. 3. The petitioner challenged the maintainability of the applications and the claim of the respondents. It was wrongly urged that the transfer orders were passed in ordinary course and did not affect the service conditions of the respondents. 4. The Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal held that the transfer orders were passed malafide with the object of defeating the claim of the workmen, which was pending in Reference No. 60 of 1969 and although by themselves the transfer orders do not affect the service conditions of the respondents, but viewed in the background it should be held that the workmen are adversely affected and consequently the applications under section 33A of the Act, should be held to be maintainable. By the impugned award, the Tribunal directed the Management to re–transfer the complainants to the earlier posts they were holding in the Research Laboratory. The petitioner company has filed these writ applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari quashing the said award. 5. Mr. R.P. Katriar appearing for the petitioner contended that there has not been any contravention of section 33 of the Act, at all and the applications under section 33A were not maintainable. The service conditions of the respondents have not been affected and the final finding recorded by the Tribunal on this question is entirely illegal. The right of the Management to transfer an employee (without adversely affecting the service conditions) is inherent and there is nothing in the present cases to suggest otherwise. The respondents are mere matriculates without any technical education and have been transferred to posts carrying the same pay scale. The Tribunal has, without any material, held the action of the petitioner malafide and the finding, being completely illegal and without jurisdiction, is fit to be set aside. The learned counsel also urged that the finding of the Tribunal mentioned above being such that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal depended on it, the writ court has a duty to scrutinize it thoroughly. Reliance was placed on the decision in Air India Corporation vs. V.A. Rabello, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1343, Mr. The learned counsel also urged that the finding of the Tribunal mentioned above being such that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal depended on it, the writ court has a duty to scrutinize it thoroughly. Reliance was placed on the decision in Air India Corporation vs. V.A. Rabello, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1343, Mr. Katriar also cited the decision in Bata Shoe Co. Ltd. vs. Ali Hasan (Industrial Tribunal) A.I.R. 1956 Pat 518, and argued that the ratio of the case specially mentioned in paragraphs 6 and 9 concludes the point on merits in favour of the petitioner. 6. With respect to the point that section 33 of the Act, is not attracted at all in the present case, Mr. Katriar placed before us clause (a) of sub section (1) of section 33 of the Act, which reads as follows:– "33 Conditions of service etc. to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during the pendency of proceedings:– (1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before an Arbitrator or a Conciliation Officer or a Board or of any proceeding before 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." It has been argued that before the above quoted provisions can be said as to apply to a case, it is necessary to establish an identity of the dispute under conciliation (or any other proceeding before Labour Court etc.) and of the dispute raised by him in challenging the Impugned order. If the two disputes are different and are not common, the section cannot apply. The point urged appears to be well founded. It is not suggested that any other provisions of the section is relevant in the present case. The workmen, therefore, should have proved the nature of the dispute which was under conciliation when the impugned transfer orders were made with a view to prove that the dispute now raised is connected with the conciliation proceeding. No document relating to the conciliation proceeding has been filed in the present case and the only relevant assertions is to be found in paragraph 3 of the workmen's application (Annexure–1 to the writ application) which is in the following terms:– "3. No document relating to the conciliation proceeding has been filed in the present case and the only relevant assertions is to be found in paragraph 3 of the workmen's application (Annexure–1 to the writ application) which is in the following terms:– "3. That the present reference is for adjudication of industrial dispute with regard to revision of scales of pay of all the employees including that of the petitioner and as such the petitioner is workmen concerned according to section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act". 7. The application under section 33 A of the Act, was registered as Misc. Case 79 of 1970 and was filed in Reference Case No. 60 of 1969 and the paragraph quoted above referred to Reference Case No. 60 as 'the present reference'. In paragraph 11 of his deposition, the workman Uma Shankar stated as follows:– "Ref. No. 60 of 1969 relates to general wage revision. I have not tiled copy of this reference. It does not relate to my transfer". It appears that admittedly the pending reference related to general wage revision and was not connected at all to a question of transfer of the workmen from one department to another. The Industrial Tribunal has not indicated as to how any provision of section 33 of the Act, has been contravened so that the application under section 33 A could be maintainable. The existence or the conditions mentioned in section 33 of the Act, being essential for the maintainability of the application under section 33 A, the petitioners are entitled to raise the question before the High Court in writ jurisdiction and I accordingly hold that since the workmen have nor established that any of the necessary conditions applies to the present cases, their applications under section 33 were not maintainable. 9. In support of his second contention, Mr. Katriar urged that the finding of malafide recorded by the Tribunal is not supported by any material and is illegal. The Tribunal has not referred to any evidence direct or circumstantial, showing that the Management had an animus against the transferred workmen. 9. In support of his second contention, Mr. Katriar urged that the finding of malafide recorded by the Tribunal is not supported by any material and is illegal. The Tribunal has not referred to any evidence direct or circumstantial, showing that the Management had an animus against the transferred workmen. As has been admitted by one of them and mentioned above the conciliation proceeding was pending for a general revision of wage structure of all the workmen and it is not found by the Tribunal the transferred workmen were taking any special interest in the Union activities so as to earn wrath of the Management. The petitioners have attached copies of the depositions recorded before the Tribunal as annexure to the writ application and it has not been shown before us that any fact or material exists supporting the inference of malafide. The observation of the Supreme Court in Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. vs. Sirajuddin & other, 1960 (1) LLJ 556 , may be considered in this regard:– "The failure of the appellant to give specific reason for the re–transfer or the respondent appears to be the sole basis on which the conclusion of malafides is founded. It is hardly necessary to emphasis that the findings of malafides can be made by Industrial Tribunal only after sufficient reliable evidence is led in support of it. Such a finding should not be made light heartedly or in a casual manner as has been done by the Tribunal in the present case." The finding of mala fides recorded by the tribunal in the cases before us appears to suffer from a similar defect and must, therefore, be set aside. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner next urged that the Management has got implied right to transfer, the workmen unless the service conditions expressly negative such a right and the workmen do not suffer on account of loss in wages etc. and further by the transfer the workmen are not sent to Inferior position. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in New India Flour Mills vs. Sixth Industrial, West Bengal, 1963 (1) LLJ 745. I agree with the principle as mentioned. The respondents have not contended before us that there was any reason to hold that the power of the management with regard to transfers was limited. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in New India Flour Mills vs. Sixth Industrial, West Bengal, 1963 (1) LLJ 745. I agree with the principle as mentioned. The respondents have not contended before us that there was any reason to hold that the power of the management with regard to transfers was limited. It follows that in the circumstances the Tribunal could not interfere with the orders unless it is shown that the conditions of service of the workmen have, as a result thereof, been altered to their prejudice. 11. In paragraph 5 of its judgment, the Tribunal held that the transfer orders did not affect the service conditions of the workmen, but since the transfer orders were malafide they could be presumed to affect the service conditions. So far as the fact is concerned it must, therefore, be held that the service conditions are not affected to the prejudice of the workmen and the latter inference, apart from being vague and doubtful as to whether it is correct or not automatically disappears after the finding on the question of malafides is set aside. The fact that the workmen have not suffered in the matter of their service conditions is fully established by the evidence of the workmen. Uma Shankar Sharma stated in paragraph 3 of his examination–in–chief that even after the transfer, his scale of pay remained the same. He further admitted in paragraph 13 of his cross examination that there is no separate grade for technical or non–technical staff. From his statements made in paragraphs 11, 13 and 14, it is manifest that he has not attempted to prove any alteration in his service conditions which could affect him. What has been asserted on behalf of the workmen in their evidence as well as in their counsel's argument is that the chances of promotion in research laboratory were better than in the posts to which they have been transferred. This aspect does not appear to be relevant. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2281 of 1966 (the date of judgment being 25.1.1967) that the chances of promotion are not the conditions of services. The proposition was considered by a Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Md. Latif vs. The State of Jammu & Kashmir, 1970 (3) Lab & Ind. The proposition was considered by a Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Md. Latif vs. The State of Jammu & Kashmir, 1970 (3) Lab & Ind. Cases 366 and S.M.F. Ali, C.J. who delivered the judgment, after quoting the relevant passage from Civil Appeal No. 2281 of 1965 and referring to 1966 (2) S.C.R. 907 , held that a chance of promotion in future is not a condition of service and if a person by being transferred to a service goes down a few steps so as to lose promotion, it cannot be said that his conditions of service have been altered to his prejudice. A similar question arose before this court in Bata Shoe Co. Ltd. vs. Ali Hasan (Supra) and in paragraph 6 of the judgment the argument on behalf of the Management that the transfer of the workmen from Personnel Department to the Purchasing Department on the same pay scale did not alter the conditions of his service was accepted. I am therefore of the view that the service conditions of the petitioners have not been altered to their prejudice so as to attract section 33 of section 334 and the Industrial Tribunal was in error in giving the impugned award. 12. The writ application is accordingly allowed and the award is quashed. But the parties are directed to bear their own costs. I agree. Applications allowed.