Judgment 1. This Letters Patent appeal is directed against the Judgment and order of the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 1169 of 1995 (R). 2. The dispute brought before this Court by the appellant relates to transfer of an employee from Jamshedpur to Dhanbad. The Employees union raised dispute contending that as "local area" had not been defined in terms of Rule 12 of the Rules and Regulations framed by the Company, i.e. Blue Star Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the management of the appellant had no jurisdiction to transfer the employee. The dispute was eventually referred by the Government of Bihar to the Labour Court, Jamshedpur in the following terms: "Whether mutual settlement defining local area of the Company according to provisions of Rule 12 of the service conditions of workman is necessary before transfer of any workman of Blue Star Ltd. ?" 3. Upon consideration of the cases of the parties, the evidence on record, the Labour Court came to the following conclusion: "Considering the facts, circumstances and evidences discussed above, I have come to the conclusion that according to Rule 12 of the service condition of the workman of Blue Star Ltd., it is necessary to define local area for transfer purpose by mutual settlement between the company and the Union, However, it is made clear that it is not necessary that local area should be defined before transfer of every workman. Rule 12 of Rules and Regulations of Blue Star Ltd., Eastern Region only requires that the place where workman is to be transferred must be defined as the same local area from time to time." 4. Shri M.M. Bannerjee, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of Rule 81 of the Rules, the dispute should have been referred to under Section 10(2) of the Industrial; disputes Act and not under Sec. 10(1)(c) of the Act. In order to appreciate the point, it would be apt to notice the provisions of Sec. 10(1)(c) and 10(2) of the Act as under: (1) "Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time, by order in writing, (a) to (b)...... ............... ......... In order to appreciate the point, it would be apt to notice the provisions of Sec. 10(1)(c) and 10(2) of the Act as under: (1) "Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time, by order in writing, (a) to (b)...... ............... ......... (c) "refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to the dispute, if it relates to any matter specified in the second Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication." (2) "where the parties to an industrial dispute apply in the prescribed manner whether jointly or separately, for a reference to the dispute to a Board, Court, (Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal), the appropriate Government, if satisfied that the persons applying represent the majority of each party, shall make the reference accordingly." 5. Though there is difference between the two provisions, it would appear that after reference is made whether under Sec. 10(1)(c) or Sec. 10(2), the procedure for adjudication is the same. The parties are required to put in their written statement, adduce the evidences and so on. That being so, in our view, the distinction would be academic in nature particularly where no case is made out that the parties are likely to or have suffered prejudice. In the absence of any allegation as to prejudice, the award cannot be challenged on the ground that reference was made under this or that provision. The submission of the counsel is thus rejected. 6. Shri Banerjee then contended that the rules having been framed with respect to the employees of the appellant-company working in the eastern region, the whole of the eastern region should be treated as the "local area" for the purposes of Rule 12 of the Rules and, therefore, it was permissible to the company to transfer concerned employee not only to Dhanbad but else where too within the region. At this stage the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules may be quoted as under: "An employee shall, at the discretion of the Company, be liable to be transferred either in the same or in any other capacity to any section, department, office or establishment of the company situated in the same local area as defined from time to time by mutual agreement and shall be governed by the hours of work and all other rules and regulations as applicable there. Supervisory, engineering, executive and similar category of staff may be transferred to any establishment of the company anywhere in India." 7. From a perusal of the above rule it would appear that an employee of the company is liable to be transferred either in the same or in any other capacity to any section, department, office or establishment but in the same local area "as defined from time to time by mutual agreement". Where transfer is made from one section to another section or from one department to another department etc. but at the same place, there would be no difficulty in doing so. But where the transfer is to be made from one place to another, this can be done only if the two places fall within "the local area". Therefore, it is essential to define or specify the local area. Had the intention been to treat the entire eastern region as the local area, there was no necessity of using the words "as defined from time to time by mutual agreement." 8. The Labour Court has held, as seen above, that without defining the local area for the purpose of transfer, the employee cannot be transferred to another place. We find no error in the conclusion. The Court has already made it clear that the local area has to be defined only once; that is to say, once it is done, it would not be necessary to define the same every time when the employee is sought to be transferred from one place to another. 9. We, therefore, do not find any error in the impugned order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition. This appeal is thus dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 10. The so called cross-objection filed by the writ petitioner is not pressed, which is accordingly dismissed.