ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This application has been preferred by petitioner, M/s. Usha Martin Industries Limited, against the Award dated 21.10.2000, pronounced on 8.3.2001, in Reference Case No. 24 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, the order of transfer in respect to workman, Shri A.K. Jha, has been declared to be not proper and unjustified by the learned Presiding Officer, who further held that the workman is entitled to be posted at local unit of the management with back wages consequential benefits. 2. The brief fact of the case shows that the workman. Sri A.K. Jha, was appointed as Commercial Trainee in Usha Martin Black Limited (now known as Usha Martin Industries Limited) on 2.4.1979 and was posted at Jamshedpur, where he Joined on 1.5.1979. He was confirmed on 1.5.1980 and transferred from Personnel Department to Security Department on 26.11.1982, which followed subsequent order to transfer made on 30.1.1986 to Purchase Department. In January, 1996, impugned order of transfer was issued by the President (Works) of M/s. Usha Martin Industries Ltd. and petitioner was transferred from Jamshedpur to Bombay on the ground of exigency of works and the workman was relieved on 17.1.1996 to report Bombay by 24.1.1996, but it was not acted upon, as the workman opposed the transfer vide letter dated 17.1.1996. A dispute having been cropped up between the parties, the Government of Bihar referred the dispute vide Notification No. 4/D2-60104/96 L & E/1346 dated 17.9.1996, registered as Reference Case No. 24/96. The management appeared and opposed the Reference but it was answered in favour of the workman by impugned award dated 21.10.2000, as pronounced on 8.3.2001. 3. The only question to be determined is whether the management has right to transfer the workman from Jamshedpur to Bombay and such order of transfer was proper and justified or not, which was Issue No. 2 before the Court below. 4. Before the Court below, evidences were led by the parties and the management took plea that it had power in terms of conditions of service, as was stipulated in appointment letter dated 1.5.1980. It further took plea that the management had power to transfer any of its workmen from one branch to another, from one office to another and from one place to another, even in its allied company. It further took plea that the management had power to transfer any of its workmen from one branch to another, from one office to another and from one place to another, even in its allied company. Reliance was also placed on the provision of Standing Orders as also Provision IV of Schedule 1/b of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Act. 1946, in support of managements claim of its power to transfer a workman. 5. On behalf of the workman, it was pleaded that in absence of any Rule/Guidelines or provision, made in the Standing Orders, the management had no power to transfer. The aforesaid submission, made on behalf of the workman, was accepted by the learned Presiding Officer, in passing the impugned award dated 21st October. 2000. 6. The workman also alleged mala fide against the officials of management, which was, however, rejected by the learned Presiding Officer, in absence of any evidence. 7. Before this Court, the parties took similar plea as were taken before the learned Presiding Officer. 8. The definition of Standing Orders laid down under Section 2(g) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Act, 1946, means the Rule relating to matter as set out in the Schedule. Under Section 15 of the Act, appropriate Government is empowered to frame Rules to carry out the purposes of the Act; the Schedule, attached to the Act, 1946, provides different conditions of service, including shiftwork, leave, punishment etc., but it is silent so far as transfer is concerned. 9. A certified Standing Orders under the Act, 1946 was initially issued by the Certificate Officer, Bihar, on 17.8.1981, wherein, under Clause 11, certain stipulations were made in respect to transfer, as set out hereinunder : "Every employee shall be liable to be transferred from one Factory/Management to other under the same company situated at any place within Chhotanag-pur Division of the State of Bihar and shall also be liable to be transferred from one department or shift to another job provided that the terms and conditions of his service remains materially unaffected and the work entrusted to him shall be allied or similar or not more skilled to the work or Job previously done by him and reasonable time is allowed to him to pick up the new job or work and when transferred out- station, the employee shall be given reasonable Joining time and travelling allowance." 10. The Union of workmen moved against the aforesaid provision of transfer before the appellate authority, whereinafter, the provision of transfer was deleted from the Standing Orders, being outside the purview of Schedule to the Act, 1946. Thus, it will be evident that the Act, 1946 and the Standing Orders, framed thereunder, are silent so far as it relates to transfer. 11. It is a settled law that in absence of any contrary provision, the employer has inherent power to exercise direction relating to condition of service, including transfer, if it is not detrimental to the employee. The transfer being a condition of service, the management has power to transfer, if it does not contravene any Rule/Guideline or affects any right of the workman. 12. In the present case, there is nothing on the record to suggest that the right of the workman will adversely affect on transfer. Admittedly, there is no bar prescribed for transfer of workman from one place to another, within the same company. The workman does not loose his seniority in the cadre to which he belongs, nor any allegation is made that the workman is reduced in rank by way of transfer. 13. Where the order of transfer is found to be mala fide or in cases where such orders are in colourable exercise of power, as such, the order becomes wholly illegal in transferring a person, the Court generally interferes in such matter to stop arbitrary action of management. The allegation of mala fide, though raised by the workman, on appreciation of evidences, it was rejected by the learned Presiding Officer, which has not been challenged by the workman. The allegations of the workman that the order of transfer was made because of the fact that he was opposing in many matters on behalf of the Union, cannot be accepted in absence of supporting evidence. Transferring a person, because of trouble-maker or because of his being a troublesome, in cases, may become a good weapon to transfer such employee in the interest of administration and cannot be characterised as punitive. The Supreme Court in the case of B. Varada Rao. Transferring a person, because of trouble-maker or because of his being a troublesome, in cases, may become a good weapon to transfer such employee in the interest of administration and cannot be characterised as punitive. The Supreme Court in the case of B. Varada Rao. v. State of Karnataka, reported in 1986-11 CLR 277, observed that it is well understood that transfer of an employee, who is appointed to a particular cadre of transferable post, from one place to another, is an ordinary incident of service and, therefore, does not result in any alteration of any of the conditions of service to his disadvantage. That a transfer is a general condition of service of the employee, that such transfer is to be affected for the administrative conveniences and that the Court should not sit in appeal nor should call for details of administrative exigency, if the general principle is followed. In the case of N.K. Singh v. Union of India, reported in 1995-1 LLJ 854, the Supreme Court observed that no roving enquiry into the matter is called for or Justified, within the scope of judicial review of a transfer scrutinised with reference to the private rights of an individual. It further held that the transfer of an employee in a transferable service is a necessary incident of the service career and that assessment of the quality of men is to be made by the superiors, taking into account several factors, including suitability of the person for a particular post and exigencies of administration, that several imponderables requiring formation of a subjective opinion in that sphere may be involved at time and that the only realistic approach is to leave it to the wisdom of the hierarchy of superiors to make that decision and unless that decision is vitiated by mala fide, or infraction of any professed norm of principle, governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinised Judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinising all transfers and Courts lack the necessary expertise for personal management. This must be left, in public interest to the institutional heads, subject to the limited Judicial scrutiny. 14. From the decisions, as referred, it will be evident that the person who challenges the order of transfer, is to prove either that the order passed because of mala fide or that the order has affected the right of such person. This must be left, in public interest to the institutional heads, subject to the limited Judicial scrutiny. 14. From the decisions, as referred, it will be evident that the person who challenges the order of transfer, is to prove either that the order passed because of mala fide or that the order has affected the right of such person. Except to defend, the employer is not supposed to justify the order before a Court of law nor any Court of law can sit in appeal to make an enquiry, if malajide is not pleaded or the right of the employee is not affected. 15. In the present case, it was for the workman to prove that the order was mala fide. He failed to prove the same and the allegation of mala, fide has been rejected by the Court below. 16. There is nothing on the record to suggest any mala fide against any individual nor any allegation was made, that it affects any right of the workman. In the aforesaid background, it was not open to the learned President Officer to interfere with the order of transfer on mere ground that the management failed to prove that it has power to transfer. 17. The writ petition, accordingly, succeeds and the impugned award dated 21st October. 2000, pronounced on 8th March, 2001, is set aside. 18. Writ allowed.