JUDGMENT : 1. Shakti Insulated Wires (Private), Ltd., as the name suggests, is an industrial unit engaged in the manufacture of insulated wires. Wires for turbines being one of their products, the company has to conform to the standards laid down by the Indian Standards Institute. Whether the product conforms to the standard is checked at every stage of manufacture, such as in the covering department, enameling department and finally in the quality control department. 2. Shankar Ambekar joined the company when he was an under-graduate. Being an ambitions young man, Shankar proceeded with his studies while earning and obtained his degree of Bachelor of Science when he was appointed in the quality control department as a tester. In December 1979, he was transferred first as an operator to the covering department and then to the enameling department in January 1980. Shankar worked for a couple of months in the enameling department but on 8 March 1980, reported back to the quality control department on his own without any order of transfer, much to the chagrin the management. On 21st March 1980, a charge sheet was served on Shankar for his misconduct in not continuing in the enameling department and he was suspended during the enquiry. On 21 May 1980, punishment of suspension for four days was awarded to Shankar and he was asked to report to the enamelling department on 26 May. That completes the first phase of the disciplinary proceedings against Shankar. 3. It appears that on 26th May 1980, Shankar did report himself in the factory but wrote a letter to the Manager. Personnel and Administration, that "he was reporting for duty under protest," and just walked away. This was received by the addressee on the same day at 3.00 p.m. On 6th June 1980 a charge sheet was served on Shankar narrating history of his earlier suspension for four days and orders of the company asking him to report for work on Monday, the 26 May 1980. The charge sheet further refers to Shankar's unwillingness of work in the enameling department where he was assigned to work and the fact that he left factory premises without punching the card. The charge sheet further refers to Shankar's unwillingness of work in the enameling department where he was assigned to work and the fact that he left factory premises without punching the card. Accordingly the Manager-Personnel charged Shankar firstly, with the absence without leave, secondly, wilful insubordination or disobedience and thirdly with commission of an act subversive of discipline because after leaving the factory premises on 26 May 1980, Shankar did not report back to duty. In a departmental enquiry that followed, Shankar was found guilty and a punishment of dismissal was imposed on him by an order, dated 28 July 1980. 4 A reference was made to the second Labour Court at Bombay in (IDA) Ref. no. 931 of 1980 under S. 10(1)(c) read with S. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for reinstatement of Shankar. The learned Presiding Office of the Court found no substance in the reference and rejected the same giving rise to the present writ petition. 5. Sri Kochar, learned counsel for the workman, has assailed the order of reference on three counts : Firstly, he submits that as Sri Mehta, enquiry officer, was a shareholder of the company, he was biased against the workman and hence the enquiry was not fair and proper. It appears that the enquiry office was not the disciplinary authority and had only to record the evidence and submit his findings to the final disciplinary authority, being one Sri R. M. Shah, Manager, Personnel and Administration appointed by the company. Secondly, it is for the first time at the Bar that this complaint about bias is being made not the final financial interest of Mehta can be gleaned from the record. Thirdly, the analogy of a judicial process would not strictly apply to the one conducted by domestic tribunal. Indeed, in a domestic tribunal even the employer can conduct the enquiry himself provided he does so in a fair manner. 6. Sri Kochar thereafter underscored the fact that whatever bundle of facts have been alleged in the so-called charge sheet do not amount to a misconduct at all. According to counsel, the gravamen of the charge was a wilful insubordination or disobedience but all that Shankar was trying to impress on the management was that he should be allowed to continue to work in quality control department in which department he had spent major portion of his career. According to counsel, the gravamen of the charge was a wilful insubordination or disobedience but all that Shankar was trying to impress on the management was that he should be allowed to continue to work in quality control department in which department he had spent major portion of his career. The history as appearing from the pleadings as well as the award shows that for some inexplicable reason not appearing from the record, Shankar wishes to dictate to the management as to which department of the company he would work in. Inspite of the orders, Shankar did not work in the enameling department but barged his way into the quality control department even though no valid transfer orders were passed. That gave rise to the first charge-sheet and Shankar was put on guard that he could not on his own choose the department in which he would work. Shankar was suspended during enquiry and punished with suspension for four days. Shankar learnt nothing, forgot nothing from this punishment and persisted in his stance that he would work in the quality control department. In this view of the matter it is difficult accept the submission of Shri Kochar that there was no wilful disobedience of the reasonable order of the superior. 7. Lastly, it was urged on be half of the petitioner that under the agreement with the union it was obligatory on the company to consult the association in case of transfer and this having been not done the valuable right of obtaining advice from the association has been lost. 8. The relevant paragraph of the settlement with the union reads : "However, the workman shall continue to maintain perfect flexibility and mobility from one grade to the other within the department as also inter-department. The workman shall be transferred from one job to the other irrespective of grades within the department and from one department to the other at the sole discretion of the company depending upon the exigencies of work. However, in the event of any difficulty, the matter shall be sorted out in consultation with the association." The italicised words "sole discretion of the company" govern the power to transfer and in the nature of things it will have to be left to the management as to choose the place where a particular workman should be posted. However, in the event of any difficulty, the matter shall be sorted out in consultation with the association." The italicised words "sole discretion of the company" govern the power to transfer and in the nature of things it will have to be left to the management as to choose the place where a particular workman should be posted. The penultimate sentence having permitted absolute discretion in the matter of transfer with the management the ultimate clause regarding the consultation with the association would apply to case where there are difficulties and none were expressed by Shankar at any stage. Shankar appears to urge that consultation with the association is a sine qua-non before transfer, a proposition which would not only be not acceptable in any management exercise but goes counter to the very settlement arrived at with the workers. In these premises we do not find any flaw in the reasoning of the award rejecting the reference. Petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.