ORDER : Y.B. Bhatt, J. Heard the Official Liquidator. The applicants and/or deemed applicants are absent though served. 2. These applications arise under unusual circumstances. 3. From the record it appears that 24 individual cases were pending before the Labour Court at Rajkot namely Reference (LCR) Nos. 186/84 to 207/84 and 1167/84, as also Reference (LCR) No. 441/81. The Labour Court, Rajkot during the course of the hearing of the said cases passed an order dated 30th June, 1986, original whereof has been forwarded to this Court. From the said order it appears that it is an admitted fact that the winding up order has been passed in respect of the Company known as Time Meet Pvt. Ltd., which is an opponent in those cases, and that this Court as the Company Court has also made appointment of the Official Liquidator in respect of the assets of the Company. The Labour Court then recorded as part of its order a finding that section 446 of the Companies Act would be attracted, and that therefore, References pending before it cannot be proceeded with except by leave granted by the Company Court. Admittedly, no such leave of the Company Court had been obtained. The Labour Court therefore recorded a finding of fact that those References cannot be proceeded with. 4. Having recorded such a finding, the said Court also considered what is to be done in the circumstances and what would be the necessary consequential order required. The Labour Court then apparently took the easy way out, and decided by itself that it had jurisdiction to pass order under section 446 Sub Section 3 of the Companies Act, and boldly proceeded to transfer all those References to the High Court as the Company Court. 5. Even a plain reading of section 446 as also Sub Section 3 thereof, leaves no doubt that the power of transfer as also the power of disposal of cases pending before other courts vests in this Court as the Company Court. Such a power of transfer does not vest in the subordinate courts whereby such subordinate courts can transfer pending proceedings of the High Court on their own initiative, and particularly where the parties to these proceedings are conscious that although it was necessary to obtain the permission of the Company Court, they have failed or neglected to obtain such permission. 6. 6. In the premises aforesaid, the order passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot effecting a suo motu transfer of the aforesaid cases pending before it to the High Court for disposal was an order entirely without jurisdiction. 7. It merely requires to be noted that since the Labour Court had passed a judicial order and transferred the proceedings to this High Court by a covering letter addressed to the Assistant Registrar, the Registry has given each of such cases a Company Application Number, and has treated the said Company Application Number as if the same is an application filed in this Court for obtaining orders under section 446 of the Companies Act. As aforesaid, the very basis of the order passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot effecting suo motu transfer of these proceedings to this High Court is illegal and void, and obviously therefore, such a order of transfer cannot possibly give rise to any proceeding in this Court which can legitimately be considered to be an application made under section 446 of the said Act. 8. I am conscious of the fact that under section 446, The Company Court has jurisdiction to call for proceedings pending in other courts, and to hear and dispose off such proceedings. However, I am also conscious that such power as is vested in the Company Court under section 446, is not necessarily a suo motu power, and even if it is so, it is not to be exercised casually. It may only be exercised when the necessary and appropriate facts are brought on record before the Company Court by parties who seek to invoke such power. Even otherwise, on the facts of the case, I am not inclined to exercise such suo motu power assuming such power exists, and/or to call for such cases by exercising the power of the Company Court under section 446, particularly inasmuch as no such motion has been made by any party to the pending proceedings. 9. In the premises aforesaid, these applications are rejected, the so called common order of Reference passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot dated 30th June, 1986 in the aforesaid cases is quashed and set aside. The Registry is directed to return to the said Court, Record & Proceedings in respect of the aforesaid cases. The Labour Court, Rajkot shall then proceed to deal with those cases in accordance with law. 10. The Registry is directed to return to the said Court, Record & Proceedings in respect of the aforesaid cases. The Labour Court, Rajkot shall then proceed to deal with those cases in accordance with law. 10. The Registry is directed to send yadi to the Labour Court, Rajkot together with R & P of the aforesaid cases latest by 28th October, 1998. Application rejected.