JUDGMENT : S.K. Jha, J. Although the brief of this case, namely, C.W.J.C. No. 3111 of 1981 seems to be a voluminous one, the point to be decided is a very short and simple one. Since C.W.J.C. 764 of 1981 and M.J.C. No. 465 of 1981 are matters incidental to the main writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 3111 of 1981, I propose to deal with all these three cases by this common JUDGMENT :. 2. C.W.J.C. No. 3111 of 1981 In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the ORDER :and award, dated 14th July 1981 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Muzaffarpur in reference case no. 19 of 1979, as incorporated in Annexure-10 of the writ application has been challenged and the frontal attack to the ORDER :can be very simply stated, hut before dealing with the ground of attack, a short narration of facts is warranted. Hence the relevant short facts first. 3. The Government of Bihar in the Department of Labour and Employment under a notification, dated 28th November 1979, referred the industrial dispute between the Management of Champaran Sugar Company Limited Harrah Factory Branch, Barachakia (East Champaran) and their workman represented by Chini Mazdoor Sangh, Barachakia (East Champaran) under section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the court for adjudication. The terms of reference run thus : "Whether the transfer of Shri R.N. Trivedi, Head Clerk, is justified ? If not, what relief he is entitled to ?" Without going into the irrelevant details, suffice it to say that the workman concerned, namely, Shri R.N. Trivedi, was appointed by the Company registered under the Indian Companies Act as an employee of the Company. The appointment letter has not been produced by the workman concerned or by the Union sponsoring his case for reasons best known to them. It is worth while to state here that the company's registered Head Office is situate at Sutherland House, Kanpur (U.P.). It is engaged in the business of manufacture of sugar by vacuum pan process. This Company has two sugar mills; one at Barachak in (East Champaran) and one at Chanpatia (West Champaran). Both the units of the Company are engaged in the same business, namely, manufacture of sugar and the system of working, the pattern of administration and other things are the same. This Company has two sugar mills; one at Barachak in (East Champaran) and one at Chanpatia (West Champaran). Both the units of the Company are engaged in the same business, namely, manufacture of sugar and the system of working, the pattern of administration and other things are the same. Both the aforesaid units are controlled by the Company's registered office at Kanpur. The balance sheet of the both the units at Barachakia and Chanpatia is one. The Standing ORDER :is the same relating to both of them and there is also a financial integration between the two units of the Company. Both the Mills are administered jointly by the same Managing Director and also controlled by the same Board-of-Directors; Policy matters relating to the manufacture, administration and other things are decided and controlled directly by the Managing Director. All appointments of the office staff and the workmen are made by the Company in the name of the Company itself for the company. Appointments are never made by any particular Unit of Company for that unit only. Keeping in view, the administrative requirement of a particular unit, the Company has been transferring their employees from one unit to another as all the members of staff are recruited for the Company and by the Company. The Managing Director of the Company has been exercising this power of transfer through the General Manager of the two units. Respondent no. 4, Shri R.N. Trivedi, the employee concerned, was appointed by the petitioner-Company, as first, office assistant and was placed to work as such at Barrah Factory Branch at Barachakia unit. He was transferred in the year 1971-72 as a member of Internal Audit, which was doing internal audit of both the units of the petitioner-Company. Respondent no. 4 accepted this transfer in ORDER :to perform his duty as a member of internal audit team. It is borne out by Annexure-1 to the writ application, which is a memorandum from the petitioner-Company to respondent no. 4 at Barrah Factory Branch, Barachakia. It is dated 18th June, 1971 wherein it has been stated that his services had been transferred to Internal Audit under the direct control of the Head Officer, which means at Kanpur. A copy of this memorandum was forwarded for information to the General Manager of the Barrah Factory Branch unit with reference to his letter, dated 11th June, 1971. Respondent no. A copy of this memorandum was forwarded for information to the General Manager of the Barrah Factory Branch unit with reference to his letter, dated 11th June, 1971. Respondent no. 4 joined the Head Office at Kanpur. Thereafter, it seems the employee concerned, namely, respondent no. 4 made a representation to the petitioner-Company, which is borne out by Annexure-13 to the writ application, wherein respondent no.4 has stated that : "I shall be extremely grateful if you kindly consider transferring me back to Barrah Factory as in my transfer to internal audit, I am facing much difficulty financially as well as physically after serving the Company for about 22 years at one place and again, he has stated in Anoexure-13 that:- "I assure you my continued sincerity & loyalty to the Company. I also assure you that I will give no occasion for any complaint against my work and conduct." On that very document, an ORDER :was passed by the Company that in view of the facts and circumstances as discussed, his pleas be approved. This document is dated 4th May, 1972. He was consequentially sent back to Barrah Factory at Barachakia. Thereafter on 22nd May, 1979, after seven years, the petitioner-Company wrote to respondent no. 4 that for administrative reasons it had been decided to transfer his services as Head Clerk to Chanpatia Factory Branch with immediate effect and be was asked to hand over charge of his office to one Shri C.P. Pandey and report for duty to the General Manager, Chanpatia Factory Branch. A copy of this ORDER :has been appended to this writ application as Annexure-2 and copies thereof were forwarded to the General Manager, Chanpatia Factory Branch and to the Chief Accountant, Champaran Sugar Company Limited, the petitioner-Company with his Head office, at Sutherland House, at Kanpur. It has also been mentioned in Annexure-2 that this ORDER :had reference to the Managing Director's confidential letter, dated 15th May, 1979. Persuant to this ORDER :of transfer, respondent no. It has also been mentioned in Annexure-2 that this ORDER :had reference to the Managing Director's confidential letter, dated 15th May, 1979. Persuant to this ORDER :of transfer, respondent no. 4 wrote to the General Manager Barrah Factory Branch, Barachakia, explaining his difficulty and ultimately prayed that - "Under the above circumstances mentioned above and considering my trouble at this old age, I earnestly request your honour to kindly reconsider my case and stay transfer ORDER :for which I shall ever pray." This letter was written on 25th May, 1979, and is incorporated in Annexure-3 to this writ application. Without going into unnecessary details, suffice it to say that by a Memorandum dated 31st May, 1979 vide Annexure-4 addressed to respondent no. 4, the workman, the Company regretted to express its inability to reconsider and stay his transfer ORDER :. Respondent no. 4 was, therefore, advised to hand over charge to the 1st Assistant Shri C.P. Pandey and to proceed to join at Chanpatia Factory Branch, which he never did. He was further informed that it was not possible for the Company to continue respondent no. 4 on the Rolls of the Barrah Factory Branch, Barachakia, after 2nd June, 1979. Copies of this letter were also forwarded to Shri C.P. Pandey, aforementioned, the Administrative Officer, Barrah Factory Branch and the Head Time. Keeper, Barrah Factory Branch, for information and necessary action Copies were also forwarded to the General Manager, Chanpatia Factory Branch, Chanpatia, for information, who was requested to relieve one Shri Nagendra Prasad, to take over charge at Barrah Factory Branch, Barachakia, as Head Clerk, and also to the Chief Accountant, Champaran Sugar Co. Ltd., Sutherland House, Kanpur, for information. It is this ORDER :of transfer of respondent no. 4 from the Barachakia Branch Unit of the Company to the Chanpatia Branch, which ultimately led to the issuance of the notification (Annexure-5) referring the so called industrial dispute in the terms as already mentioned earlier. 4. By the impugned award, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Muzaffarpur, in his long, elaborate and painstaking ORDER :and award arrived at a conclusion that respondent no. 4 could not be transferred to Chanpatia Branch of the Company and that consequentially, the ORDER :of transfer of respondent no. 4 from Barrah Factory Branch to Chanpatia Sugar Factory Branch passed by the Management was set aside and the petitioner-Company was directed to allow respondent no. 4 could not be transferred to Chanpatia Branch of the Company and that consequentially, the ORDER :of transfer of respondent no. 4 from Barrah Factory Branch to Chanpatia Sugar Factory Branch passed by the Management was set aside and the petitioner-Company was directed to allow respondent no. 4 to continue and work at Barrah Factory Branch, Barachakia on the post of Head Clerk on the terms and conditions of the service applicable to him at the time of transfer ORDER :. The Management of the petitioner-Company was further, directed to pay to respondent no. 4 all his back wages (although he never worked in any of the Mills) which had not been paid to him for the period after the ORDER :of transfer was passed. It is very pertinent to point out here that from the date of the ORDER :or transfer of respondent no.4, he worked neither at Barrah Factory Branch, Barachakia nor ever joined the Chanpatia Sugar Factory Branch of the Company. 5. The Labour Court has throughout proceeded upon the assumption that the onus of proving the factum of transferability of respondent no. 4 from one Branch to the other, namely, from one Unit of the petitioner-Company to its another Unit was on the petitioner company and that it had not been able to discharge that onus and, therefore, an inference should be drawn that it is a case of victimization. I am afraid, the entire foundation upon which the structure of the impugned ORDER :and/or award of the Labour Court stands is so feeble as not to sustain the structure in the form of the impugned ORDER :. 5. It is a well settled principle of law that when a registered company employ a workman or an employee in its one branch or unit, it is always presumed, until something is there to show to the contrary, that the workman or the employee was serving the Company and was liable to be transferred from one unit of the company to another. The master is the Company and the workman or the employee is the servant of the Company. It cannot, therefore, lie in the mouth of the workman concerned to say that his job was non-transferable from one unit of the Master Company to its another unit. As I have already stated earlier, the letter of appointment of respondent no. The master is the Company and the workman or the employee is the servant of the Company. It cannot, therefore, lie in the mouth of the workman concerned to say that his job was non-transferable from one unit of the Master Company to its another unit. As I have already stated earlier, the letter of appointment of respondent no. 4 has not been produced either by respondent no. 4 himself or the respondent Union. There is nothing in the Standing ORDER :s of the Company or the different Units of the Company to show that the post of respondent no. 4 was non-transferable from one unit of the master Company to its another unit. No term and condition of service having been brought on record, nor there being anything to the contrary contained in the Standing ORDER :of either the Company or its different Units showing that the appointment of respondent no. 4 to a particular post in one Unit was non-transferable, the law gives perfect opportunity/liberty to the master Company to transfer its employees to its different Units in the exigencies and for administrative reasons. To crown it all, the conduct of respondent no. 4 itself shows and lends support to the stand taken by the petitioner company that his job was transferable since as far back as in the year 1971, when he had been transferred to the Company's Head Office at Kanpur and on his own representation for his retransfer, he was retransferred to Barachakia Branch or Unit of the Company by an ORDER :, dated the 4th of May, 1972. Can it then lie in the mouth of respondent no. 4 or for that matter the respondent Union to challenge the legality and validity of the ORDER :of transfer as contained in Annexure-2, dated the 22nd of May, 1979? The answer in my considered view is clearly in the negative. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Union including respondent no. 4 endeavoured to induce us to hold that it was a case of victimisation and an act of malafide on the part of the Management of the petitioner-Company. I fail to appreciate this argument. If in law, it was permissible for the petitioner-Company to transfer respondent no. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Union including respondent no. 4 endeavoured to induce us to hold that it was a case of victimisation and an act of malafide on the part of the Management of the petitioner-Company. I fail to appreciate this argument. If in law, it was permissible for the petitioner-Company to transfer respondent no. 4 from one Unit to another or for that matter to the Head Office itself, for administrative reasons and the exigencies of the situation, the question of mala fide and victimization does not arise at all. By no stretch of imagination, can it be said that the ORDER :of transfer suffers from illegality of any sort. 7. I am, therefore, constrained to hold that the impugned ORDER :of the Labour Court as contained in Annexure-10, dated 14th July, 1981, is erroneous on the face of the record-a firm ground impelling this Court to hold that a writ of certiorari be issued to quash the impugned ORDER :of the Labour Court. I, accordingly, allow this application and quash the impugned ORDER :and award, dated 14th July, 1981, as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application with costs. Hearing fee assessed at Rs.500/- only, payable by respondents no. 2 and 4 jointly or severally to the petitioner-Company. This concludes C.W.J.C. No. 3111 of 1981. 8. Re: C.W.J.C. No. 764 of 1981 : In view of my decision in C.W.J.C. No. 3111 of 1981, this application becomes infructuous since this application involves only the question relating to the interim award. 9. Re: M.J.C. No. 465 of 1981: This is an application for contempt filed by respondent no. 4 of C.W.J.C. No. 3111 of 1981 against the Company, which is the writ petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 3111 of 1981. Since I have already allowed that application, no question of contempt arises and the application is dismissed, but without any costs. 10. This disposes of all the three applications. Application allowed with costs.