JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. The petitioner is a society registered under the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act; 1960. The Respondent No. 2 was in the employment with the petitioner. His services were terminated by order No. 7528 dated July 25, 1986 (Annexure-A). Aggrieved with the termination, the respondent No. 2 approached the respondent No. 1 under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking reference of the dispute to Respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 1 accepted the prayer and referred the dispute vide order dated June 10, 1987 (Annexure B). The respondent No. 3, on receipt of the reference, decided the dispute in favour of the respondent No. 2 and passed the award on January 6, 1993 (Annexure C). By the aforesaid award, the order of termination was set aside and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent No. 2 with backwages. The petitioner maintained that the award was a nullity as having been passed without jurisdiction but complied with the order by reinstatement of respondent No. 2 on July 9, 1993 (Annexure-D). On reinstatement the respondent No. 2 was posted at Burhanpur. He however did not accept this posting and made the application to respondent No. 1 for the direction of posting at Indore (Annexure E). This application was contested (Annexure-F). The respondent No. 1, however, on August 7, 1993 passed the order (Annexure G) in the following terms : 2. Aggrieved by the award (Annexure C) and by direction as contained in Annexure-G, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. On November 24, 1993 this Court had directed issuance of show cause notice against admission of the petition and had also stayed the operation of the order/award passed by respondent No. 3 (Annexure C) until further orders. 4. The respondent No. 2 has submitted the reply and opposed the admission of the petition 5. I have heard both sides. 6. As noticed from the award (Annexure C) the petitioner did not file any reply. It on July 15, 1991, filed an application for an opportunity to lead evidence to prove misconduct as alleged, but later on June 23, 1992, the petitioner declared that it did not desire to lead any evidence. I have heard both sides. 6. As noticed from the award (Annexure C) the petitioner did not file any reply. It on July 15, 1991, filed an application for an opportunity to lead evidence to prove misconduct as alleged, but later on June 23, 1992, the petitioner declared that it did not desire to lead any evidence. The respondent No. 3, therefore, appreciated the claim of respondent No. 2 on the basis of the application made in the statement of claim and on the basis of the statement of respondent No. 2 before respondent No. 3. The order is based on appreciation of ex parte evidence. The petitioner did not choose to contest either by submission of the reply or by production of evidence. It is further noticed that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was not challenged, I, therefore, find there is no infirmity or illegality in the award (Annexure-C). 7. The respondent No. 2 has already been reinstated in service. 8. Faced with the aforesaid position as contained in Annexure-C the counsel for the petitioner therefore limited his grievance in the petition to the direction as regards the place of posting contained in Annexure-T, According to him, the respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to post respondent No. 2 only at Indore. The counsel for the respondent No. 2 also agreed with the petitioner as regards this part of the case. 9. In view of this position, I deem it proper to expunge the aforesaid direction with regard to the place of posting as contained in last para of Annexure-T. The petitioner shall be free to decide about the place of posting. This power of petitioner can suffer no fetter whatsoever. In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Joginder Singh Bhatt AIR 1993.SC. 2486, it is laid down that it is the discretion of the Department to decide about the place of posting or transfer. 10. In the result, I find that this petition is apropos so far as the impugnment of the order Annexure-C is concerned but as regards the direction contained in Annexure-G, it merits expunction of that direction as noted above. 11. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed off finally with no orders as to costs.