ORDER The present writ petition is heard along with another matter In Re: Sri Sekhar Sengupta vs. The Basumati Corporation Limited & Ors. Both the matters are considered for final disposal In the first petition, Nirmalendu Sekhar K. Hmakar and 13 others, have prayed, inter alia : a) A writ in the nature of Certiorari commanding the Respondents, their officers, subordinates and agents to certify, produce and/or cause production of the records relating to and connected with the subject matter of challenge in the present writ application including the records and files where the impugned orders of transfer have been passed w that the same may be perused by this Hon'ble Court and the impugned orders of transfer and simultaneous release may be set aside and quashed by this Hon’ble Court ; b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents, their officers, subordinates and agents to forthwith cancel, revoke and/or withdraw the impugned transfer order and the impugned order of release being order nos.-PCR/91-93/44 and 45, 32 and 33, 59 and 60, 70 and 41, 56 and 57, 38 and 39, 61 and 62, 63 and 64, 65 and 66, 70 and 71, 68 and 69, 75 and 76, 84 and 85, 34 and 35 respectively. all dated April, 1992 passed by Managing Director, Basumati Corporation Ltd. and to forbear from giving any effect or further effect to the aforesaid impugned orders and to act in accordance with law. c) A writ in the nature of Mandamus calling upon the respondents to act in accordance with the option or non option exercised by the petitioners on the basis of individual letters dated January, 1992 (Annexure B-1) issued to all employees; c) A Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, their officers, subordinates and agents to forbear from taking any step or action which will be prejudicial to the publication of Dainik Basumati from Calcutta and to act in accordance with law. d) Rule NISI in terms of prayers (8), (b) and (c) above. e) An interim injunction respraining the respondents concerned, their officers, subordinates and agents from giving any effect or further effect to the impugned order being order nos. d) Rule NISI in terms of prayers (8), (b) and (c) above. e) An interim injunction respraining the respondents concerned, their officers, subordinates and agents from giving any effect or further effect to the impugned order being order nos. PCR/92-93/44 and 45, 32 and 33, 59 and 60, 40 and 41, 56 and 57, 38 and 39, 61 and 62, 63 and 64, 65 and 66, 70 and 71, 68 and 69, 75 and 76, 34 and 35, 84 and 85 respectively an dated April, 1992 and also an interim stay of operation of the afore• said impugned orders till the hearing of the present rule f) to make the rule absolute g) to costs of and incidentals to this application b) Any other appropriate writ of writs of orders or direction as to Your Lordships may seem fit and proper. 2, In the second petition filed by Sri Sekhar Sengupta, it is also prayed : (a) A writ in the nature of Certiorari commanding the Respondents, their officers, subordinates and agents to certify. produce and for cause production of the records relating to and connected with the subject matter of challenge in the present writ application including the records and files where the impugned orders of transfer have been passed so that the same may be perused by this Hon'ble Court and the impugned orders of transfer and simultaneous release may be set-aside and quashed by this Hon'ble Court. (b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents their officers, subordinates and agents to forthwith cancel, revoke and {or withdraw the impugned transfer order and the impugned order of release being order Nos. (b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents their officers, subordinates and agents to forthwith cancel, revoke and {or withdraw the impugned transfer order and the impugned order of release being order Nos. PCR/92 92/396 and No. PCR/91.92/397 both dated February 19, 1991 issued by the Managing Director, Basumati Corporation Limited and to forbear from giving tiny effect or further effect to the aforesaid impugned orders and to act in accordance with law; (c) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents, their officers, subordinates and agents to forbear from taking any step or action which will be prejudicial to the publication of Dainik Basumati from Calcutta and to act in accordance with law; (d) Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) above; (e) An interim injunction restraining the respondents concerned, their officers, subordinates and agents from giving any effect or further effect to the impugned order being Orders No- PCR/91-92/396 and No, PCR/91/92/ 397 both dated February 29, 1992 and also an interim stay of operation of the aforesaid impugned orders till the hearing of the present Rule; (f) To make the Rule absolute; (g) To costs of and incidentals to this application; (h) Any other appropriate writ or writs or orders or directions as to Your Lordships may seem fit and proper. 3. It is stated in details that the writ petitioners are the employees of the Respondent No.1, The Basumati Private Corporation Limited, The State of West Bengal took over the Busumati Private Limited by 'enacting Basumati Private Limited (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1974. This is an Act to provide for the acquisition for public purpose, of the undertaking of the Nirmalendu Karmakar v. Dasumati Corporation (S. Chatterjee, J.) 495 Basumati Private Limited with a view to securing the proper administration. and management thereof for the purpose of ensuring efficient publication of the Basumati, a daily newspaper in the Bengali language which has a great past and tradition and timely publication' of journals and periodicals published by it and resuming the publication of books particularly Sanskrit 'Classics and Bengali version and other Bengali Classics, and who with a view to assuring the retention of the services d the workmen whole continued employment has been threatened, so that the interests of the public may be better served. It is stated that the purpose for the said enactment was "Whereas it will be useful to the public and It will result in benefit and advantage to the public and having regard to the public utility it is expedient to provide for the acquisition of the undertaking of the Basumati Private Limited with a view to securing the proper administration on and management thereof for the purpose of ensuring efficient publication of the Basumati, a daily newspaper in the Bengali Language which has 'a great past and tradition and timely publication of journals and periodical published "by if and resuming the publication of books, particularly Sanskrit Classics in Bengali version and other Bengali Classics, and then with a view to assuring the retention of the services of the workmen whole continued employment has been threatened so that the interests of the public may be better served". 4 It is placed on record that regarding employment of the existing employees, the said Act of 1974 provided : "6. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Ss.3, 4 and 5, the State Government may by order in writing direct that the undertaking of the company together with all its properties and assets, specified in sub-s. (1) of S. 4, shall, instead of continuing to vest in the State Government vest in such corporation owned or controlled by the State Government (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) and on such date as may be specified in the direction. (2) Where an order vesting the undertaking of the Company In a corporation is made under sub-s. (1) al1 the rights, liabilities and obligations of the State Government in relation to the undertaking of the company shall on and from the date of such vesting, be deemed to have become the rights, liabilities and obligations, respectively of such corporation. (3) The Corporation shall, for the purpose of management 2nd administration of the undertaking of the Company, act in accordance with much direction, If any, as may be issued by the State Government in this behalf". 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent No, 1 is going to start a new establishment at Siliguri and the petitioners ore going to be transferred there, although, under the terms and conditions of the employment, the petitioners cannot be transferred, and thus being aggrieved the petitioners have challenged the said orders by seeking relief’s as Indicated above. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent No, 1 is going to start a new establishment at Siliguri and the petitioners ore going to be transferred there, although, under the terms and conditions of the employment, the petitioners cannot be transferred, and thus being aggrieved the petitioners have challenged the said orders by seeking relief’s as Indicated above. 6. Both the petitions are seriously opposed by the respondents by filing comprehensive affidavits-in-opposition. It is placed on record that there is a standing order providing the terms and conditions of employment of all workmen of the Basumati Private Limited. By virtue of s. 7 of the said Act, Service Conditions of the employees of the respondent No.1, were liable to alteration by the State Government or by the corporation formed under s. 6 of 1974 Act. In exercise of the aforesaid power, the 'Board of Directors of the respondent No.1 at its 125th meeting held 29th January, 1987, altered such conditions of employment by adoption of Bengal Model Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 as the service rules applicable to the employees of the respondent No.1. Such adoption of the said Rules was duly communicated by the respondent No.1 to all concerned including its employees by the letter No. NPB/87/88 1428 dated 9.5.87 addressed by the Managing Director of the respondent No.1. It is asserted that paragraph 24 of the Bengal Model Standing Orders adopted by the respondent No. 1 as its Standing Orders, provides as follows : - “ 24. Transfer of Workmen – Any workman may be transferred from one job to another or from one section or department to another in the interest of production or effetely of the establishment. Provided that any such transfer shall not adversely affect the total emoluments or the basic conditions of service of the workman concerned" . 7. The respondents have denied all the allegations of the writ petitioners and they have asserted that inspite of the fact that the respondent No. 1 has been incurring heavy loss year after year, no curtailment of expenditure or withdrawal facilities to the staff was made. 7. The respondents have denied all the allegations of the writ petitioners and they have asserted that inspite of the fact that the respondent No. 1 has been incurring heavy loss year after year, no curtailment of expenditure or withdrawal facilities to the staff was made. It is further asserted that the real reason for inability of the daily newspaper to compete with other newspapers in the market was due to the incapability of the journalist staff inn the employ of the respondent No.1 It is asserted further that as attempt has been made to transfer experienced staff to the new department for the existing centres, so that the new publication may be expertly guided. The question of petitioners exercising any option is wholly irrelevant, inasmuch as the respondent No.1 is entitled to transfer its employees under the standing orders applicable and such power has been exercises properly and in fair and reasonable manner. The respondent No.1 has also offered accommodation and financial assistance to the persons transferred. The only reason for the respondent No. 1 inviting its staff to indicate their option is with regard to the transfer was that all the employees at Calcutta were not intended to be transferred and the respondent no.1 was willing, subject to other conditions of fitness etc, to allow the employees to have a say as to who was to be first transferred. It was also pertinent to consider, in the context of the scheme to start publication from siliguri and consequent transfer of Staff, that a sum of Rs. 5 crores had to be spent only to met personnel const and input cost for the Newspaper at Calcutta and there was no fund left for any other purpose, and further that it was the lack of motivation and competence of the journalist staff in the employ of the respondent no.1 which was the reason for want of excellence in the Newspaper and that as long as such cause to be remained, no amount of so-called modernization would help. The respondent have denied that if some of the staff after transferred from Calcutta to Siliguri it would be impossible to continue to publish Dainik Basumati form Calcutta or that the motive behind such transfer is to make is impossible for continued publication of Dainik Basumati from Calcutta, On the contrary, although the newspaper has been incurring severe loss, enough money has been pumped into it to met the essential cost like personnel, material input and there has been no curtailment of the existing facilities to the employees. It is also denied that the action of the respondent no.1 is in any way ulterior or mala fide. The allegation for wasting of any public money is also false and malicious. It is pointed out that the petitioners have not made any allegations in the petition that the petitioners are in any way adversely affected by the transfer orders. On the contrary, the respondent no. 1 has offered accommodation facilities and financial assistance to those transferred employees. It is placed on record that Siliguri is not far from Calcutta and even if the petitioner have to join at Siliguri, they have nothing to suffer. The respondents have emphasized that for dwinding circulation of the Dainik Basumati and consequent recurring loss suffered by the respondent no.1, the decision was taken to start simultaneous publication from Siliguri. It is indicated that the reasons of loes competition, prompt distribution, expected increased advertisement revenue etc. have led to the decision. It is urged that the respondents no.1 has been incurring a loss of Rs. 70 to 80 lakhs every year on account of Dainik Basumati. The gross turn over from Dainik Basumati came down from Rs. 101.10 laksh in the year 1983-81 of Rs. 72.15 lakhs in the year 1991-92 while the personnel costs increased from Rs. 54.26 lakhs in the year 1983-84 to Rs. 140 lakhs in the year 1991-92. The respondent no.1 has had to borrow a sum of Rs. 6.53 crores as loan from the Government but could not pay either the principal or interest on the loan taken. In spite of all facilities and cooperation form the Government, the circulation of the newspaper came down form 28,700 copies per day in the year 1986-87 to 13,000 copies per day in the year 1991-92. The respondent no.1 is not in a position to continue to incur such huge loss. In spite of all facilities and cooperation form the Government, the circulation of the newspaper came down form 28,700 copies per day in the year 1986-87 to 13,000 copies per day in the year 1991-92. The respondent no.1 is not in a position to continue to incur such huge loss. At the same time, the respondent no.1 does not intend to close down the publication of Dainik Basumati at Calcutta. If the publication of DAinik Basumati is stopped, the employees directly connected with the newspaper will be thrown out of employment. As an alternative measure to protect the employment of such a large number of employees, it was justifiably decided by the respondent no. 1 to publish Dainik Basumati also from Siliguri. Dainik Basumati at Siliguri will have no competitor at all as all the leading newspapers of Calcutta reach Siliguri in the evening. To make the respondent no. 1 viable, the respondent no. 1 has given stress on job printing work and decided to publish a Fortnightly. The Job Printing Work has increased considerably inasmuch as gross turn over of job printing work bas increased from Rs. 40.44 lakhs in the year 1986•87 to Rs. 215.00 lakhs in the year 1991-92. The net profit after meeting of the cost of raw-materials' and personnel cost from job printing work in the year 1991-92 was Rs. 42.56 lakhs and the loss from Dainik Basumati was Rs. 81.50 lakhs in the same year. The target for job printing work has been fixed for Rs. 2.5 crores. The respondent No.1 also expects to earn a not profit of at least 12 lakhs In a year from fortnightly to lie published. It is asserted that if three steps namely (1) Stress' on job printing works, (2) publication of Dainik Basumati from Siliguri and (3) publication of a fortnightly, can be taken up properly. It is expected that the respondent No.1 will be viable within a short period. The decision of the respondent No.1 to start publication of Dainik Basumati from Siliguri is not for closing down Basumati Corporation Limited, but for revival and revitalisation of the respondent No 1 find making it economically viable. All other allegations of the writ petitioenrs have been controverted. 8. The decision of the respondent No.1 to start publication of Dainik Basumati from Siliguri is not for closing down Basumati Corporation Limited, but for revival and revitalisation of the respondent No 1 find making it economically viable. All other allegations of the writ petitioenrs have been controverted. 8. the petitioners have, however, filed affidavits-in-reply and traversed the facts stated in the affidavit-in-opposition and reiterated the points already taken in the writ petitions It is their specific case that the impugned orders are unwarranted and uncalled for. Service conditions and standing orders do not provide for any transfer. Bsides the respondent No.1 is taking steps to start absolutely a new establishment as Siliguri. It is alleged that steps have been taken to close down the publication of Basumati from Calcutta. The separate and independent establishment if going to be formed at Siliguri further. No infrastructure has been made at Siliguri as yet. There is no electricity nor there is proper arrangement for running the show. 9. Mr. Saktina!h Mukherjee, learned lawyer, appearing for the writ petitioners has strongly argued that .the different transfer orders together with connected release orders are the subject matter of the challenge in the writ petitions It is contended that it will appear from the transfer orders under challenge that each petitioner is being transferred from his own department or section 'as mentioned therein to Siliguri unit of Basumati Corporation Limited. The main grievance is that the petitioners service is not transferable to Siliguri. A separate establishment which is being started long after the date of appointment of the petitioners. The Standing Orders of the Corporation do not permit such transfer from Calcutta to the new establishment at Siliguri. It is really a step in aid to close down the publication of Dalnik Basumati from Calcutta. The said transfer crocrs are alleged to be mala fide as most of the employees transferred belong to a Union affiliated to I.N.T.U.C. except two who belonged to a Union affiliated to C.IT.U but opposed the transfer scheme. Mr. Mukherjee bas developed his argument that the transferability of an employee depends on : (a) the provisions of law governing his service condition, or (b) in the absence of any such provision on the terms of his contract of employment. 10. Mr. Mr. Mukherjee bas developed his argument that the transferability of an employee depends on : (a) the provisions of law governing his service condition, or (b) in the absence of any such provision on the terms of his contract of employment. 10. Mr. Mukherjee has drawn the attention of his Court to a decision reported in 65 Calcutta Weekly Notes XV (Notes Section) that in respect of a Government Servant, the transferability "auld be governed open the provisions of law. In a case concerning an employee of the Government of West Bengal an order of transfer was struck down as Rule 5 (40) of W.B.S.R. Part-I did not permit such transfer from one office to any other office became under the prevailing Rules he could not be transferred only from one Headquarter Station to another such station. Much emphasise has been laid upon paragraph 7 of the Standing Orders of Basumati Private limited which reads as follows : "7. Transfer-Service of any workman is laible to be transferred from one post to another or from one: department to another or from one shift to another". It is submitted that the respondent No.1, the Corporation has adopted the Bengal Model Standing Orders and that para 24 of the said Bengal Model Standing Orders reads as follows : "24. Transfer of workmen-Any workman may be transferred from one job to another or from one Section or Department to another in the interest of production or efficiency of the establishment; Provided that any such transfer shall not adversely affect the total emolument or the basic conditions of service of workmen concerned." 11. Mr. Mukherjee has further argued that it was open to the Basumati Corporation Limited to adopt Bengal Model Standing Orders as they claim' to have done in view of the fact that already there were certified Standing Orders in force at the time of the enforcement of Basumati Private Limited (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act 1974. and Section 7 (subsection 1) of the said Act provides that with the acquisition of the undertaking every workman shall continue to hold office on the same terms and conditions etc. until his terms and conditions of employment "are duly altered by the State Government or such Corporation as the case may be". The mode of due alteration is prescribed by under Section 10 of the Act of 1946. 12. until his terms and conditions of employment "are duly altered by the State Government or such Corporation as the case may be". The mode of due alteration is prescribed by under Section 10 of the Act of 1946. 12. The attention of this Court has been drawn to s. 10 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 that a set of Standing Orders can be modified only by agreement or by taking recourse to the procedure specified in s. 10 (2). A certified Standing Order cannot be rendered inoperative by purported unilateral adoption of the Bengal Model Standing Orders by an alleged resolution of the Board. Under s. 12A of the ~aid Act the Model Standing Orders can be adopted only during the interregnum between the date of application for certification of Standing orders and the final certificate. There is no "due alteration" of the Certified Standing Orders as required by s. 7 of the Act. of 1974 in the instant case by taking recourse to s. 10 nor there was any scope for adoption of Model Standing Orders as there was already a set of certified Standing Orders occupying the field. 13. The main force of the argument is that assuming that para.24 of the Bengal Model Standing Orders is applicable to govern the transferability of the petitioners, it is submitted, that the transfer orders under challenge are not couvered by the said paragraph. The transfer orders under challenge from one department or section in Calcutta to ‘Siliguri Unit’ of Basumati Corporation is permitted by paragraph 24 of the Bengal Model Standing Order. But is would be worth while to anylyse the scheme of the Industrial Model Standing Orders Act, and to find out that under the prevailing Standing orders such transfer as contemplated in not permitted. Further attention of the Court has been drawn to the preamble of the Industrial Emploment Standing Orders, Act, 1946 and to s.2(g) which defined “Standing Orders” to mean “Rules relating to matters set out the Schedule”. Section 15 (2) a however, enables the appropriate Government to make Rules which may “(a) Prescribe additional matters to be included in the Schedule and the procedure to be followed in modifying Standing orders certified under this Act in accordance with any such addition”. 14. Mr. Section 15 (2) a however, enables the appropriate Government to make Rules which may “(a) Prescribe additional matters to be included in the Schedule and the procedure to be followed in modifying Standing orders certified under this Act in accordance with any such addition”. 14. Mr. Mukherjee has continued his submissions by arguing that both the Central Government and the State Government of West Bengal in exercise of their Rule making power under s. 15(2)A, have added several matters which may be provided in Standing Orders under the Act. Thus the Central Rule 2A has introduced Serial No. 10A to the schedule of the Act under which “transfer”, without any qualification, is specified under SI. No. 4 to be an additional matter Similarly Rule 2A of the Bengal declares that “matters relating to – “(ii) inter-departmental or inter-sectional or inter-mill or inter-factory or inter-garden transfer or transfer from one shift to another and change of jobs”. 15 It is contended that this additional matter specified under the Bengal Rule defines the limits of the field of law making by way of framing of the Standing Order. Similarly, the Central Rule defines such limits. The difference is that the Central Rule introduces by way of addition "transfer" without any qualification but the Bengal Rule specifies the specific kinds of transfer which may be covered by Standing Orders. In paragraph 4 of Central Model order provides as follows : "Transfer: A workmen may be transferred according to exigencies of work from one shop or department to another or from one station to another or from one establishment to another under the same employer......". 16. The Bengal Model Standing Orders, on the other hand, under paragraph 24 provides : "Transfer of Workmen" : Any workman may be transferred from one job to another or from one section or department to another in the interest of production or efficiency in the establishment". 17. Mr. Mukherjee bas further submitted that the Bengal Standing order does not cover the whole or permitted field as specified in Bengal Rule 2 A (ii) It does not cover inter-mill or inter-factory transfer; on the other hand, It permits inter-sectional or inter-departmental transfers only. Similarly, the Central Model Orders permits inter-stations and inter-establishments transfer but the Bengal Model Order either Under Rule 2A (ii) or Model Order paragraph 24 does not permit such transfer. Similarly, the Central Model Orders permits inter-stations and inter-establishments transfer but the Bengal Model Order either Under Rule 2A (ii) or Model Order paragraph 24 does not permit such transfer. Both the Central Model Standing Orders and the Bengal Model Standing Orders are specific in dealing with the transfers. It will appear from the Central Model Standing Order that inter-departmental or inter-station or inter-establishment transfers are different and distinct and that is precisely the reason for which they have been specified separately in the order itself. Further, the Bengal Model Standing Order does not cover inter-shop, inter-station or inter-establishment transfers. The Bengal Model Standing Order provides for inter-section or inter-department transfer in the establishment that is in the same establishment and not between two establishments. 13. 'The attention of the Court bas been drawn to the case of Kundan Sugar Mills reported in AIR 1960 SC 650 An employee cannot be transferred to a new establishment which bas been founded lifter the date of his appointment in the previous Establishment. Much stress has been laid upon the interpretation of the expression "Establishment". It was submitted that since the certified Standing Order are to be construed as statutory condition of service, and for violation thereof, the petitioner can certainly come to the Writ Court. There is also reference in the reported decision of the Hon'ble supreme Court reported in AIR 1990 SC 1031 as to the case of Mahabir Auto and, to the case of Srilekha Vidyarrhi reported in AIR 1991 SC 537 . The jurisdiction of this Court has been extended to interfere even in tile case of violation of non-statutory contract. There is, however, reference of the case reported in 1966 (2) LLJ 330 regarding the precision• as to the definition given in the relevant Act and it must be appreciated that a possible interpretation should be made in a way as if where, two views are possible, the petitioners being employees or workmen are entitled to the benefic of that interpretation which is beneficial to them. There is, however reference of 1982 (44) FLR 71. 14. There is, however reference of 1982 (44) FLR 71. 14. There is a strong argument that a futile attempt has been made to establish that this Siliguri unit is the same establishment where as the publication of Dainik Basumati from Siliguri will be completely a separate publication and the impugned orders of transfer as made by Respondent No.1 are illegal and mala fide and it ought to be struck down, as alleged by the writ petitioners. 15. The definition of "establishment" and particularly "Industrial establishment”, have been defined in various Acts, namely, "Payment of Wages Act, 1936" or the "Factories Act, 1948". The expression "Industrial establishment", according to the definition has its own site or physical location. The Calcutta publication of Dainik Basumati and the Siliguri publication of Dainik Basurnati must have separate status, separate structures and separate machines and accordingly cannot be considered to be the same establishment as argued on behalf of the Writ petitioners. According to Mr. Mukherjee, Siliguri unit must be seemed to be a separate establishment. The ratio of the judgment in AIR 1960 SC 650 (supra) may be appreciated and the petitioner 'cannot be transferred arbitrarily and illegally. It is, however, submitted that inspite of whole hearted co-operation and written suggestion not only by the employees but also by Indian Journalists, no attempt has been made to improve the Calcutta Unit, and qualified statements of the present reader as appearing from the Bengal Annexures will make the position clear that the financial loss of the Basumati Corporation in not due to the employees. 16. Mr. NN. Gooptu, the learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, the Basumati Corporation Ltd., has on the other hand argued that there is no question of violation of the Standing Order nor there is any question of deriving in its expression from the Model Standing Orders either framed by the Centre or by the States as pointed out by the petitioners. The service condition of the Basumati Corporation Limited permits the step for transfer in the eve of the prevailing circumstances. It is contended. That steps have been taken to open new departments at Siliguri and steps have been taken to publish Dainik Basumati both from Siliguri and also from Calcutta The service conditions as would appear from paragraph no. The service condition of the Basumati Corporation Limited permits the step for transfer in the eve of the prevailing circumstances. It is contended. That steps have been taken to open new departments at Siliguri and steps have been taken to publish Dainik Basumati both from Siliguri and also from Calcutta The service conditions as would appear from paragraph no. 7 of the Standing Orders, permit the management to take effective steps to pass the impugned orders and there is neither any irregularity nor any illegality necessitating any interference by the Writ Court. He has argued with force that service of any workman is liable to be transferred form one post to another or from one department to another or from one shift to another as envisaged under paragraph 7 of the Standing Orders. The said standing order permits management of pass the impugned orders and there is no bar or impediment to give effect to the aforesaid orders or transfer in accordance with law. It is further argued that no new establishment is founded at Siliguri by closing down the publication of Basumati form Calcutta. He has refuted the charges leveled by the petitioners that no infrastructure has been made at Siliguri to enable publication of the daily newspaper. He has taken the Court in details to the averment made in the writ petitions, affidavits-in-opposition and the affidavits-in-reply. He has submitted that the approach of the writ petitioners is self-con tradictory and the same is thoroughly misconceived and motivated. According to him the writ petitions are ill-advised and at the instance of the persons having ill-motive to frustrate the constructive steps to revitalize the paper to safeguard the interest of the employees and to have success to the Newspaper as a whole. He has tried to distinguish the case reported in AIR 1960 SC page 650 (supra) by drawing the attention of the Court that the facts of the case are quite different. The principle enuncitated in the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. No new establishment is being created and the challenges made by the writ petitioners are without any merit. The points of law were referred to as to the maintainability of the writ petitions and the statutory force, if any, of the standing orders. The principle enuncitated in the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. No new establishment is being created and the challenges made by the writ petitioners are without any merit. The points of law were referred to as to the maintainability of the writ petitions and the statutory force, if any, of the standing orders. A lengthy argument has been made as to the scope of various model standing orders, their statutory position and the binding forces upon the employer and the employees. 17. With great anxiety this Court has patiently and diligently beard the learned lawyers appearing for• the respective parties. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the respondent authorities have produced the original documents, the minute books containing several resolutions and the decisions to open publication at Siliguri, and the chain of correspondence between the management and the employees: the said documents have been inspected by the learned lawyers for the writ petitioners. Lists of documents were prepared and placed before this Court. This Court bas verified the contentions made on behalf of the writ petitioners and on behalf of the respondents to appreciate the steps for publication 'of Dainik Barumati from Siliguri. The point of dispute is very small and simple. It has to be ascertained whether the petitioners are liable to be transferred from Calcutta to Siliguri or not. It has to be ascertained as to whether the service conditions of the petitioners permit the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders of transfer within the scope of the existing standing orders regulating the service conditions. It has to be ascertained whether a new establishment is being founded as Siliguri or not. It has also to be seen as to whether any new department is being opened and the petitioners are liable to be transferred from one department to another. By looking into several documents produced by the parties and from the chain of correspondence and the specific affidavit filed by the respondents, disclosing their stand unequivocally, it is found that, the apprehension of the petitioners is not real inasmuch as the respondents are not taking steps to close down the publication from Calcutta and to open a new establishment at Siliguri. Various resolutions and the decision taken by the management have been placed before this Court, indicating inter alia, that the respondent authorities are inclined to have simultaneous publication of Dainik Basumati both from Calcutta and from Siliguri. Though, it is indicated In the' main orders of transfer that the petitioners have been transferred from Calcutta to Siliguri unit, there is nothing to come to the conclusion that a new and an independent establishment is being founded at Siliguri. This Court has been taken in depth about the definition of "establishment" and "Industrial establishment". This Court has considered the definition of "establishment" and. "Industrial Establishment" as Interpreted in various statutes such as "Payment of Wages Act", "Factories Act" and other "Railway Acts". 18. This Court has considered the definition of the word "department", and as per dictionary meaning, it is : - "separate allotment, province or business assigned to a particular person; hence a separate division of a complex whole, of activities or studies, a branch, province – vide Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 3rd Edition Vol. I From Concise Oxford Dictionary New Edition it transpires : - “ a separate part of Complex whole, a branch of municipal or State administration (Housing Department, Department of Social Security), a branch of study and its administration in a university, school etc.” From Websters Dictionary – Vol. I, it appear as, “a part portion or subdivision, a distinct division of course of something as of action, study or the like……….” 19. This Court having gone through the matters in depth and looking at the documents filed by the parties, is of the view that the respondent No.1 is taking steps to publish Dainik Basumati Simultaneously form Calcutta and also from Siliguri. Steps have been taken to open new deparments at Siliguri under the self-same management and the establishment. The definition of department is quite comprehensive. The opening of the unit at Siliguri means the opening of new deparment of Siliguri. If the opening of new department is made at Siliguri, the service condition of the petitioners as envisaged in paragraph 7 of this Standing Orders, permits transfer from one post to another or from one department to another or form one shift to another. This service condition is quite sufficient for the management to pass the impugned orders asking the petitioners to join at Siliguri. The entire argument of Mr. This service condition is quite sufficient for the management to pass the impugned orders asking the petitioners to join at Siliguri. The entire argument of Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee relating to the model Standing Order founded by the Central Rule or the State Rule does not stand in the way to appreciate the paragraph 7 of the Standing orders of the Basumati Corporation. It is quite clear, simple and unambiguous. Such service conditions clearly permit the respondent no. 1 to pass effective orders of transfer of the employees from the departments at Calcutta to the departments at Siliguri. Any Management may have many department at different places. Many newspapers are being simultaneously published at a time from different cities. It is not correct that there must be separate establishment. It is not that a new establishment is founded after the employment of the petitioners as alleged and they can resist the orders of transfer in view of the decision reported in Air 1960 Sc 650 (supra). 20 Patiently this Court bas heard the submissions of both sides, diligently this Court has considered the points, of dispute and rightly tried to understand the points raised by the parties and this Court has come to the conclusion that' the impugned orders of transfer by which the petitioners have been asked to go from one department at Calcutta to a new department at Siliguri, described as Siliguri unit, do not suffer from any irregularity and illegality. For the foregoing reasons the writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. All interim orders are vacated. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.